NationStates Jolt Archive

Attention All United Nations Regional Delegates:

If You Are Interested In A World Rid Of The Nazi Party, Vote Yes For The World Free Of Nazism Proposal On Page 11 Of The Proposal List.

Since I haven't seen the proposal text (*hint*post the proposal when you advertise!) I can't make a conclusive response, but I can guess what it does. Banning ideas is wrong. Freedom of expression means the freedom to express ideas that the majority find distasteful or even appalling, otherwise the principle becomes meaningless. Free speech should only be curtailed when the speech consists of an immediate incitement to a specific crime (e.g. gathering a crowd outside a mosque/synagogue/whatver and directly encouraging them to burn it down).

I apologise if my assumption was wrong and your proposal doesn't seek to quash the very ideas of Nazism.

EDIT: N.B. And I'm not a Nazi, or a sympathiser, I'm actually half jewish by heritage and some relatives were killed in the holocaust.

A World Free of Nazism

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The GSAP

Description: This Proposal is meant for the UN to step into regions and nations to rid this world of Nazism.

1. By promoting this act, you are saying you want a better world, a world without Nazism.

2. Nazism is hereby defined as a love for Adolf Hitler and all the evil he did while he was in power.

3. On voting for this, you deny the nations the right to use National Socialism as a form of government.

4. UN members that have publicly promoted NAZISM will be expelled from the UN.

Approvals: 1 (Elite Socialist Order)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 135 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jul 26 2004



...

I went ahead with a cut & paste of your proposal for you GSAP. Good luck.

:headbang:

1) That's a really poor definition of Nazism - Nazism is a set of political beliefs, not a Hitler fanclub. By clause 2's definition, clause 3 effectively means that nations cannot have an adolf hitler fanclub as their government - it doesn't actually prevent them implementing the political ideas of national socialism, which I presume is what you want to do.

2) Clause 4 is blatant game mechanics.

3) Please, write proposals properly - don't tell the reader "By voting for this, you do this", which isn't actually true, since if they are the only 1 to vote for it, it won't happen. It should go "The United Nations 1) CONDEMNS Nazism; 2) DEFINES etc. etc."

The Confederacy of South Puyallup refuses to endorse this proposal. It is too general, and borders on a "thought police" resolution. While Nazism is a deplorable belief system and Hitler was an unexcusably evil man, South Puyallup citizens value the basic human right to believe in any religious or political system one wishes to. Therefore, the Confederacy cannot support this proposal.

The best retorts have already been made, and the government of Sophista wholeheartedly agrees with them. We will stand by the right for a Nazi regime to exist, although we choose not to support them politically or economically.

Meatopiaa applauds the thoughtful efforts of The GSAP in your attempt to quash any future possibility, however remote, of ever seeing anything as horrible and, for lack of a better term, evil, as was Adolph Hitler and the 3rd Reich Nazi regime... may history in that regards never repeat itself.

As has already been made clear to you now GSAP, it does interfer in the game mechanics of NationStates. It also pretty much does unfringe on the rights of some people and their societies to have their government, however twisted and illogical they may seem to you, and me, and probably most everyone else.

You are thoroughly encouraged to try a rewrite that may be acceptable though. Or, submit further proposals on other issues that will not affect game mechanics, infringe on Nations governments, or cause too many skirts to get ruffled ;)

Also, check out these links ... http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=333482 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=333482) and http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) and http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=330452 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=330452) , to start.

Good Luck!

...

* The Rep of Komokom glances in :

Just quickly, I noted another possible problem is that the 3rd Reich Nazi regime, Adolf Hitler, and the Holocaust, were all technically a " real world history " kind of issue, which are usually not allowed.

( You know, like " Lets Make Sanctions Against The Blair Government " or " Unify Korea " kind of resolutions. Or, " Bush Is An Idiot, Says Us " )

;)

* Moves along.

I might have raised that point first, except for the fact that Mikitivity's resolution currently up for voting references real world studies and such, and I actually like him.

Actually Sophista, its important to note, once on the general voting floor, a proposal cannot be culled by Moderation, and the degree of " real world " is low, related more to quantified scientific data. A little more appropriate then WW II related items in this case I would think.

" Covering my bases since 06 August 2003 " :D

* I like Mikitivity too. Think, we could form a club and print T-shirts for sale ...

;)

23 july 2004

The Peoples Republic opposes to this proposal and any other proposal, wimular to this proposal. It is believed that we can not withdraw the right to have this ideas. Also, the Antor governement thinks this proposal, mainly the nazi's description is not right. Yes, Antor is against racisme and doing damage to other individuals due to your believes, ideas or principals. But we will not ithdraw the right from our people to have an opinion nor having nazi's idea's. We will convict every form of harm done to another being because of nazi beliefs, we will not convict an individual to have nazi idea's.

The Peoples Republic of Antor

What if someone made a proposal saying that it was the official policy of the UN, where possible, to step in with military force if necessary wherever genocide occurs? Or has that been covered?

What if someone made a proposal saying that it was the official policy of the UN, where possible, to step in with military force if necessary wherever genocide occurs? Or has that been covered?

It appears it's covered by the already enacted "Universal Bill of Rights" resolution.

But have we said we'd actively intervene where any group (not necessarily governments, which must automatically follow UN resolutions) committed genocide?