NationStates Jolt Archive

Please go to page 11 on the UN proposals and vote to accept may proposal that racism should be a crime.

Wouldn't it be alot easier if u posted a copy of the proposal on here??

And isn't racism a crime already?

Oh, if this is some sort of "thought police" resolution, I would like to make sure you know that we like our freedoms of opinion and expression.

this resolution should def be allowed to die.


mason

Yea, what fass said!

Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Joshisha

Description: Racism should be a crime, with a maximum of ten years in prison for major offences.

The only way to eliminate racism is to send a message to racists: you will not be tolerated. Therefore, any who make racist comments against any group of different race, relegion, background etc or who owns any articles which are deemed to be racist shall be punished with a minimum of one years imprisonment, and a maximum of 10 years.

Racism is as much of a crime a stealing or rape. Let's make sure of that.

Approvals: 5 (Lennium, Gaiah, The Wild Cards, Venerable libertarians, SitromTaza)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 11 2005

Yup, severely limiting on freedom of opinion and expression. No go.

See there's this thing called freedom of speech that is valued incredibly highly in our society.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

You obviously havn't visited Northern Ireland Joshisha! If that law was passed, 90% of the population would be locked up. lol!

You obviously havn't visited Northern Ireland Joshisha! If that law was passed, 90% of the population would be locked up. lol!

There is no nation called "Northern Ireland", so no one could visit it.

There is no nation called "Northern Ireland", so no one could visit it.

You do know I'm talking in real life here?

You do know I'm talking in real life here?

Fass probably knows that you are speaking of RL, and thinks that RL is irrelevant to NS discussions in the UN.

You do know I'm talking in real life here?

Then you need to say so. Try this:

OOC: You obviously havn't visited Northern Ireland Joshisha! If that law was passed, 90% of the population would be locked up. lol!

As to the resolution... No.

You do know I'm talking in real life here?

This is real life.

OOC: Posts made about "real life" have very little to do in the NSUN forum, but if they are made OOC (= Out Of Caracter) should be used to mark them. "Real life" doesn't exist in the eyes of the NSUN otherwise.

Mr Irish brotherhood, i live in Eire. If the proposal was passed 100% of the people would be locked up as they are racist towards england.

Oh, if this is some sort of "thought police" resolution, I would like to make sure you know that we like our freedoms of opinion and expression.

I'm sorry, sir, but you've just expressed an inappropriate opinion.

*handcuffs Fass and drags him away*

Actually - and I hate to be the one to say this - but I kind of approve of this proposal. It doesn't limit freedom of thought, just freedom of expression if you use that expression to yell racist things at people in the street. We already have laws like this in TilEnca (to some degree), meaning you can't yell out "All evles are pointy eared bastards who will rape your daughters" (since that is quite obviously not true and somewhat offensive). We don't go for people who own "racist" stuff, unless they use it in an obviously provocative or criminal manner (brandishing the banner of The People for Dwarven Purity during a march, for example).

This makes action a crime - not thought. Now we don't send people to jail for ten years, or even one year, but we do punish them for their actions. Not the thoughts, but the actions.

However we do not have hate crimes legislation, as that makes thought, as well as action, a crime.

But this proposal seeks to make racist actions a crime, without speaking to the thoughts behind them. Which is fair enough.

Mr Irish brotherhood, i live in Eire. If the proposal was passed 100% of the people would be locked up as they are racist towards england.

I am not sure that is racism. Religious intolerance, maybe. Dislike of an occupying army, almost certainly, but not racism :}

I'm sorry, sir, but you've just expressed an inappropriate opinion.

*handcuffs Fass and drags him away*

Diplomatic immunity, beyotch!

I am not sure that is racism. Religious intolerance, maybe. Dislike of an occupying army, almost certainly, but not racism :}

He includes religious intolerance in the proposal. Not racism, but a punishable offense under this resolution.

I don't have a problem with outlawing racist actions, if those actions are criminal in nature. But outlawing an act because it is offensive to a group is going a bit too far.

So... someone in my nation says: I don't like those damn Nargopians. They're music is awful, their food sucks and they talk funny. Racist? Yes. Infantile? Yes. Criminal? No.

Actually - and I hate to be the one to say this - but I kind of approve of this proposal. It doesn't limit freedom of thought, just freedom of expression if you use that expression to yell racist things at people in the street. We already have laws like this in TilEnca (to some degree), meaning you can't yell out "All evles are pointy eared bastards who will rape your daughters" (since that is quite obviously not true and somewhat offensive). We don't go for people who own "racist" stuff, unless they use it in an obviously provocative or criminal manner (brandishing the banner of The People for Dwarven Purity during a march, for example).

This makes action a crime - not thought. Now we don't send people to jail for ten years, or even one year, but we do punish them for their actions. Not the thoughts, but the actions.

However we do not have hate crimes legislation, as that makes thought, as well as action, a crime.

But this proposal seeks to make racist actions a crime, without speaking to the thoughts behind them. Which is fair enough.

Well, with that reason any sort of expression of opinion can be banned. "Oh, you're OK to think things, but not to say them, 'cause expressing your opinion is an action". Fass doesn't buy it.

He includes religious intolerance in the proposal. Not racism, but a punishable offense under this resolution.

I don't have a problem with outlawing racist actions, if those actions are criminal in nature. But outlawing an act because it is offensive to a group is going a bit too far.

So... someone in my nation says: I don't like those damn Nargopians. They're music is awful, their food sucks and they talk funny. Racist? Yes. Infantile? Yes. Criminal? No.

(grin) I was talking more in general than in regards to this proposal - sorry for any confusion :}

Well, with that reason any sort of expression of opinion can be banned. "Oh, you're OK to think things, but not to say them, 'cause expressing your opinion is an action". Fass doesn't buy it.

It's a matter of perspective I guess.

Take these two quotes (both made up, and both are hypothetical)

1) "We believe the county of Kithana would be better off there were only humans living there, as it would make the people stronger and purer without the interference of other races"

2) "We believe Elves and Dwarves are morally corrupt, sub-humans who do nothing but steal and thieve. Kithana would be a much better place if only the superior race - Humans - were permitted to live there without the inbreeding, lack of intelligence, general savagery and barbariansim that accompanies the genetically inferior stock of the other two races"

In both cases the intent is clear, but I would not class the first one as racist, where as the second one I would. (I would have serious doubts about the person who said the first one, but it would not be actionable under our laws because of what it says, rather than what it implies).

I realise that the suggested proposal does border on thought patrol, but do you really accept that freedom of speech should cover two hundred people lined up in the street shouting racist slogans and chants because they want to drive the elves out of Kithana?

I realise that the suggested proposal does border on thought patrol, but do you really accept that freedom of speech should cover two hundred people lined up in the street shouting racist slogans and chants because they want to drive the elves out of Kithana?

With unwavering determination: Yes! Freedom of speech is just that, freedom of speech. Not freedom of popular speech, or freedom of not stupid speech, or freedom of what we think is correct speech.

With unwavering determination: Yes! Freedom of speech is just that, freedom of speech. Not freedom of popular speech, or freedom of not stupid speech, or freedom of what we think is correct speech.

Fair enough.

Definitely! but i thought it already was a crime :confused:

So... someone in my nation says: I don't like those damn Nargopians. They're music is awful, their food sucks and they talk funny. Racist? Yes. Infantile? Yes. Criminal? No.
Hey! How'd we get brought into this? I haven't even read this thread yet! ;)

as far as anyone can remember racism is here and everyone is racist at one point or another.we all make racial comments or think them at least everyday.so if we deem it a crime then we would not have enough room in prisons for them so now what do we do. people claim the rebel flag to be racist but through history it ha been known as a BATTLE FLAG FOR THE SOUTH.RIGHT OR WRONG?????????????????????????????????

as far as anyone can remember racism is here and everyone is racist at one point or another.we all make racial comments or think them at least everyday.so if we deem it a crime then we would not have enough room in prisons for them so now what do we do. people claim the rebel flag to be racist but through history it ha been known as a BATTLE FLAG FOR THE SOUTH.RIGHT OR WRONG?????????????????????????????????

What are you talking about?

OOC: Real life events have no bearing on discussions in this forum!

But do you ever draw the line as to what is free speech and what is - well a crime?

A) Standing in the street chanting slogans at a race (eg Elves)
B) Standing in the street chanting slogans at a group of Elves
C) Standing in the street verbally abusing one Elf using racist language to an alarming degree
D) Painting someone's house with racist slogans and sending them repeated e-mails/letters to that effect.

At some point you have to forfeit your right to claim freedom of speech.

A) Standing in the street chanting slogans at a race (eg Elves)

Not a crime.

B) Standing in the street chanting slogans at a group of Elves

Not a crime.

C) Standing in the street verbally abusing one Elf using racist language to an alarming degree

If the elf feels violated, the language is defamatory or it is violating the reasonable personal space and peace incumbent upon the individual, the elf can sue for libel or call on the police for help in regaining his/her/its personal space and peace.


D) Painting someone's house with racist slogans and sending them repeated e-mails/letters to that effect.


E-mails, letters - again, the individuals can sue if they wish. Painting on someone else's house without their consent is against the law, no matter what is painted.

At some point you have to forfeit your right to claim freedom of speech.

If it poses a clear and immediate danger, yes. For instance yelling "Fire" in a crowded building causing panic when there is no fire. Or urging on a mob to lynch someone. Or agitating the murder of someone and there is a serious danger that the urging will be acted upon. Those sorts of things, you know. When it poses a clear and present danger.

But do you ever draw the line as to what is free speech and what is - well a crime?

A) Standing in the street chanting slogans at a race (eg Elves)
B) Standing in the street chanting slogans at a group of Elves
C) Standing in the street verbally abusing one Elf using racist language to an alarming degree
D) Painting someone's house with racist slogans and sending them repeated e-mails/letters to that effect.

At some point you have to forfeit your right to claim freedom of speech.
A,B and C are stupidity words that defend by the free speach.
D- is an act. you could easily sue him on damage to public or private enterprise, illegaly painting (depend in your laws), and racist crime since the crime's background is race. you can also jail him for spamming, and threat (probaly).

D- is an act. you could easily sue him on damage to public or private enterprise, illegaly painting (depend in your laws), and racist crime since the crime's background is race. you can also jail him for spamming, and threat (probaly).

Wrong! If you write something anywhere it is classed as "freedom of speech". While you are correct in saying that it is an act, it would still be classed as freedom of speech.

Wrong! If you write something anywhere it is classed as "freedom of speech". While you are correct in saying that it is an act, it would still be classed as freedom of speech.
maybe it could classed as sub-freedom in the "freedom of speach". anyway when you move to acts it mostly classed as racist crime (eg. burning his home for his race).
personally I never heard about someone who made racist act and win in the case with the "freedom of speach" argument.

Wrong! If you write something anywhere it is classed as "freedom of speech". While you are correct in saying that it is an act, it would still be classed as freedom of speech.
So if I were to sneak up behind you and paint racist slogans on the back of your new Armani suit coat, then I would be within my rights? No. Vandalism is a crime in itself. It doesn't matter what you write on my house, if you live in Nargopia and you don't have permission then you will be punished.