NationStates Jolt Archive

NEW: APPROVAL LINK:
http://nationstates.net/page=UN_prop...match=assembly


So, in between deleting some utterly dreadful crap, I ran into this:

Freedom of Extreme Beliefs
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: North Suffolk

Description: This is a resolutions that recognizes the freedom of a right to an extremist view and or being the member of dedicated group. Although at the same time recognizing any actions by these groups which damage the lives of others is wrong.

1. This is important because an extremist view is fine, words and protests by these groups are fine. But the harming of persons or infrastructure is unacceptable.

2. Extremist groups in the past have done unacceptable acts, but to be against a type of expression by someone's belief is wrong as long as it does not persecute others.

3. Importance of this resolution is so because those that follow and support it accept that although some beliefs are not to the majority of a nation, it is of vital importance that all are given the right to express their views without Inc-curing that of another.

This resolution is important at accepting the view of everyone and furthering the cause of free speech and open democracy.

Approvals: 4 (Deenster, Kaihola, Errinundera, Arhkonnius)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 121 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jul 19 2006This actually strikes me as an interesting idea, and not bad for a non-drafted Proposal. Am I smoking crack here, or is this actually a neat concept?

I don't know what it is, and I don't know if I would actually support such a Proposal, but I just find it exceptionally interesting.


CURRENT DRAFT:

The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution the Universal Bill of Rights, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions has moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting in harm to other people or the destruction of public or private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the harm of others or the destruction of public or private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views in appropriate venues, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and coordination of political opposition organizations, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political organization that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

This does look interesting, and a pallatable option for non-democracies in the FoD category. It could have an added interest, depending on the outcome of the "UN Counterterrorism Initiative" vote.

It's also notable that, to a certain extent, this was exactly the sort of thing Ecopoeia excluded from their "Freedom of Conscience" resolution (and attracted a little criticism for doing so).

EDIT: But the proposal itself needs work. Not sure what it does right now, and I dislike clauses like 3 that tell people why the resolution's important after setting out all the operative junk.

Too vague on what falls under the "extremist" umbrella for protection. The extreme view that a particular race of people should be eliminated from the earth? The extreme view that God is actually an omnipotent and omniscient banana? The extreme view that buggering a 12-year-old boy is perfectly fine?

Too vague on what falls under the "extremist" umbrella for protection. The extreme view that a particular race of people should be eliminated from the earth? The extreme view that God is actually an omnipotent and omniscient banana? The extreme view that buggering a 12-year-old boy is perfectly fine?
Yes, I think. It's saying holding and expressing those views should be legal - but not acting on them, where they would cause harm to others (which two of these clearly would).

Yes, I think. It's saying holding and expressing those views should be legal - but not acting on them, where they would cause harm to others (which two of these clearly would).

Right, but also forming groups with those beliefs, presumably to promote them and possibly act on them. In many countries, it's illegal to promote the commission of a criminal act.

Right, but also forming groups with those beliefs, presumably to promote them and possibly act on them. In many countries, it's illegal to promote the commission of a criminal act.Oh, I didn't say that it was perfect, just that it was oddly fascinating.

And, perhaps this would force nations to change their laws in regards to hate speech. Also, lines could be drawn stating that "America is evil!" is fine, but "Shoot the president!" isn't.

I think this has potential.

It's also notable that, to a certain extent, this was exactly the sort of thing Ecopoeia excluded from their "Freedom of Conscience" resolution (and attracted a little criticism for doing so).
--this is Ecopoeia, in case you didn't already know--

Yep. I'd like to have gone much further with FoC but decided to acquiesce to (quite legitimate) complaints against doing so, those complaints being both 'natsov' and 'moral'.

In short, Eco would tacitly support something along these lines.

Yep. I'd like to have gone much further with FoC but decided to acquiesce to (quite legitimate) complaints against doing so, those complaints being both 'natsov' and 'moral'.I knew it!

Oh, I didn't say that it was perfect, just that it was oddly fascinating.

And, perhaps this would force nations to change their laws in regards to hate speech. Also, lines could be drawn stating that "America is evil!" is fine, but "Shoot the president!" isn't.

I think this has potential.

And what about shite like NAMBLA?

I knew it!
Heh, never denied it.

I think...

Heh, never denied it.

I think...

No, you didn't. I've known all along.

Heh, never denied it.

I think...Heh. You're lucky the ambassador who argued against FoC has long since ... gone insane.

By the way ... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11007548&postcount=4) :p
[EDIT: Oh, wait. I think I showed this to you some time ago. Nevermind.]

Yeah, well... in real life I have gay friends who object to hate speech against them being legitimised. I decided to limit the scope of the resolution out of sympathy for their views. 'Natsov' wasn't a concept I was especially aware of at the time (again, I think - it was a while ago), though my thinking was incorporated its terms, kind of.

Heh. You're lucky the ambassador who argued against FoC has long since ... gone insane.

By the way ... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11007548&postcount=4) :p
[EDIT: Oh, wait. I think I showed this to you some time ago. Nevermind.]
Still funny!

Heh. You're lucky the ambassador who argued against FoC has long since ... gone insane.

By the way ... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11007548&postcount=4) :p
[EDIT: Oh, wait. I think I showed this to you some time ago. Nevermind.]

You should post that link on the AO offsite forum for regional history purposes. ;)

You should post that link on the AO offsite forum for regional history purposes. ;)Already did (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=49). Unless you think it should be posted elsewhere. Let me know on the AO boards. [/threadjack][/region-pimping]

Already did (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=49). Unless you think it should be posted elsewhere. Let me know on the AO boards. [/threadjack][/region-pimping]

I can't end the region pimping. ;)

And what about shite like NAMBLA?
Depends what you mean. I assume the intention of this proposal was that groups like Nambla, who espouse unpopular views, should have the right to do so. However, if you're referring to the allegations that groups like them plan actual criminal acts, and train members in "grooming", then I don't see this proposal as affecting the ability of law enforcement to prevent that.

I think this is a difference between "public" and "private" speech. Publicly advocating paedophilia is different to privately plotting to commit it.

I think this is a difference between "public" and "private" speech. Publicly advocating paedophilia is different to privately plotting to commit it.

Not in some countries.

Not in some countries.
Explain?

I wrote the planned resolution, the reason being is that I beleive the banning of the expression of an extremist belief (an extremist view has many interpretations but I beleive it is one that may offend people of another view point) can lead to a 'black market' of extremism from which those that are vulnerable are picked by these groups to operate underground. I live in England and I beleive that the reason no one knew about the 7/7th bombers was because you are no longer able to join these groups and so intelligence services could not pick them up. I am a hawk and beleive that these groups should be destroyed, so for me to admit that this is a better solution is quite something. My view is, give them the chance to operate in groups, monitor them and when there is enough evidence, arrest everyone and take them through the justice system. Simple and easier than trying to spot those who have gone underground into society.

If I dont get this through this time, if you would be willing to TELEGRAM me in NS than that would be great, especially if you have experience and could help me word it better. Thanks.

Well that's an interesting motivation.

Of course, that reflects that openly holding an extremist view leaves you vulnerable to attack.

Not that the intoxicating a non-practising paedophile so they become a non-insane automaton and rape the child on camera for blackmail purposes works for anyone.


I think this would be an effort to decriminilise thoughts as opposed to actions in a better drafted form. Afterall, is everyone who considers their faith superior to another's and that the others deserve to experience eternal damnation because of it a bad person? If yes, half the global population would be 'bad'. Is saying it out loud and teaching other people this wrong? Possibly. Should it be illegal? Where does it become incitement to hate?

So, in between deleting some utterly dreadful crap, I ran into this:

This actually strikes me as an interesting idea, and not bad for a non-drafted Proposal. Am I smoking crack here, or is this actually a neat concept?

I don't know what it is, and I don't know if I would actually support such a Proposal, but I just find it exceptionally interesting.

It would need a serious face-lift, as right now it has just two activating "recognizes" clauses. The rest is really preamble / justification.

Current form:
This is a resolutions that recognizes the freedom of a right to an extremist view and or being the member of dedicated group. Although at the same time recognizing any actions by these groups which damage the lives of others is wrong.

1. This is important because an extremist view is fine, words and protests by these groups are fine. But the harming of persons or infrastructure is unacceptable.

2. Extremist groups in the past have done unacceptable acts, but to be against a type of expression by someone's belief is wrong as long as it does not persecute others.

3. Importance of this resolution is so because those that follow and support it accept that although some beliefs are not to the majority of a nation, it is of vital importance that all are given the right to express their views without Inc-curing that of another.

This resolution is important at accepting the view of everyone and furthering the cause of free speech and open democracy.

It really doesn't move me. The idea is fine ... actually it is a key point behind what "Mikitivity" strives for: diversity. But is this a furtherment of democracy ... I guess, in that it is promoting freedom of speech. But I think there should be *more* added to the justification.










Edit: As one can see by the thread, this eventually spun into a proposal my government is committed to, and the proposal can be found at:

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=assembly

OK, here is a crude way to rework the proposal ...

TITLE

The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democractic process,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting the destruction of public and private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the destruction of public and private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinon,

1. RECOGNIZES the right for individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in the destruction of public or private property,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share their extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

etc.


Anyways, Hack is right ... this proposal has the potential to look a *lot* like several of the provisions of the US Bill of Rights. :) OK, he didn't say that, but that *may* have been what he was seeing. It would be a nice change of pace to see how nations would debate something like this, and my government is now interested.

Yeah, I know, wrong account. Anyway...

And what about shite like NAMBLA?Well... if a group of men who think that screwing boys should be legal wants to get together for a bitch session, I don't have a problem with it. If they get together and share their sick dreams, I don't much care either. If they try to petition the government to change the laws to make their dreams legal... well, that's part of democracy. I would certainly be against any such change, but it's their right to try to change the law.

Now, if they start doing something with children, or if they tell members how to duck the law? Then it's up against the wall.


I wrote the planned resolution, the reason being is that I beleive the banning of the expression of an extremist belief [...] can lead to a 'black market' of extremism from which those that are vulnerable are picked by these groups to operate underground. [...] My view is, give them the chance to operate in groups, monitor them and when there is enough evidence, arrest everyone and take them through the justice system.Huh. Well, that was an unexpected line of reasoning. I can see how this Proposal would allow for that. Hm. That might actually work as a loophole of sorts for the types of nations who would normally not support such a Proposal. Still... I don't think this motivation negates the potential here.


I think this would be an effort to decriminilise thoughts as opposed to actions in a better drafted form. [...] Is saying it out loud and teaching other people this wrong? Possibly. Should it be illegal? Where does it become incitement to hate?Well, I've always been opposed to Thoughtcrime, which is why I disagree with hate crime laws.

At any rate, I think it has the potential to do both. The incitement becomes a little more tricky, as there has to be a time factor. If I tell someone "Go kill the jews!" and he runs out on a rampage, killing Jewish people, then I think it's pretty obvious that I incited that. But if I tell my children from a young age that blacks are the scum of the earth and that they aren't really human and that the world becomes a better place when they die, and my son goes on a rampage when he's 30, did I incite it? I clearly taught him hate, and implied that murder was good, but I didn't directly tell him to do it.

Fun, huh?

Oh, and Mik... I'll look over your redraft and comment a little later.

OK, here is a crude way to rework the proposal ...

[stuff]I think this is a good start, and not just for being in proposal-ese. It acknowledges that these people are nutters, but also their right to be nutters.

I'd just assume not be too heavily involved in redrafting for conflict of interest reasons, but I like the direction this is going.

I'd just assume not be too heavily involved in redrafting for conflict of interest reasons, but I like the direction this is going.
Insuring that this proposal is legal is a conflict of interest?:D

Insuring that this proposal is legal is a conflict of interest?:D

He can tell us when the proposal itself is all bonkers before we submit it. Mods have done that plenty of times. But since he can't control whatever is eventually submitted (hopefully by North Suffolk), no stamp of approval before hand makes things easier for everybody. :)

The reality is there is a daily issue about Nazi rallys ... and I think a good test for this proposal would be to see sort of has the same break down. If an opinion is expressed peacefully (even if the opinion itself is not), should be be expressed?

I also think Freedom of Assembly should be rolled into the proposal, as this too is a big democratic principle.

Man, if this passes I'll kick myself. I didn't think there was a chance in hell that I could get it through so I never even started to consider how to incorporate it into FoC.

Then again, this is going to be anathema to sovereigntists and I think they'll have a strong point. Kenny, Flib, etc: what do you think?

Categorisation: if FoC was Human Rights, shouldn't this be as well?

Strength: FoC was Significant, so this should be Strong?

Categorisation: if FoC was Human Rights, shouldn't this be as well?
Regardless, I think this should be FoD, because it seems to me to about expressing political opinions.

As for sovereigntism...OOC I like this proposal idea, and will try to help with it, but IC Gruenberg will almost certainly oppose anything that condones blasphemy.

Regardless, I think this should be FoD, because it seems to me to about expressing political opinions.
I agree. I think FoC was possibly mis-categorised, sadly.

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting the destruction of public and private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the destruction of public and private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinon,

1. RECOGNIZES the right for individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in the destruction of public or private property,


My government would really prefer it if this condemned the possibility of those extremists' acts causing harm to people, as well as damage to property...

Then again, this is going to be anathema to sovereigntists and I think they'll have a strong point. Kenny, Flib, etc: what do you think?

Various 'sovereigntist' nations accept various (differing) matters as possibly over-riding NatSov: For example, if I remember correctly, Flib voted in favour of forcing all UN nations to legalise labour unions... and Gruenberg might accept some 'Moral Decency' measures... and some of the current 'IndSov' supporters were formerly members of the NSO: In the case of the St Edmundan Antarctic it's furthering democracy that we'd consider a possible justification...
And there is that useful reason for allowing such groups to exist publicly until they really step over the line...

Right, O.k., I can see here there is some opinion on this subject and im not in any immediate rush to put it in again. But would it be possible for the more experienced members to put forward some draft resolution's based upon my first resolution. If so I will then word how I see fit, make changes (if needed) and then place it on this forum for open discusion. Once we come to a fitting conclusion I will then submit it again. So any Ideas, especially for the full wording of the resolution?

Explain?

I perhaps misspoke slightly -- or, rather, didn't explain completely. Publicly advocating a criminal act is incitement in some nations. Privately doing so is conspiracy to commit a crime. There's a difference between the two, but both are crimes in some countries.

I perhaps misspoke slightly -- or, rather, didn't explain completely. Publicly advocating a criminal act is incitement in some nations. Privately doing so is conspiracy to commit a crime. There's a difference between the two, but both are crimes in some countries.
Ah, gotcha.

Yes, I'm an anarcho-dandyist as well as a tree-hugger.

My government would really prefer it if this condemned the possibility of those extremists' acts causing harm to people, as well as damage to property...

That is a very logical and reasonable activating clause to add ... would you like to make a suggestion as to the exact language of the clause? And do you feel it is in conflict or in the spirit of what is currently being pieced together? I'd like to suggest that even if things are in conflict, that since this is an early draft that we still plug through the points.

would you like to make a suggestion as to the exact language of the clause?

OOC: I'll think about it, but I'm rather busy at the moment (and have relatives visiting town for the next fortnight) so don't count on a response soon...

Freedom of Assembly

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: North Suffolk or Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights, adopted on Aug. 8, 2003, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting the destruction of public and private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the destruction of public and private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in the destruction of public or private property,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and/or organization of political opposition parties, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government and/or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political party that advocates the destruction of public and/or private property as a means to spread terror,

5. CALLS UPON political parties to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political party that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

My government is still extremely interested in promoting this general concept, so my staff has drafted a proposal "Freedom of Assembly" for your governments to pick apart and comment on. The primary goals of this draft are to essentially strengthen the rights of political parties as addressed in the Universal Bill of Rights and to do so in a rather focused way (short and direct).

Naturally North Suffolk should have first shot at this draft, but if that government is not interested in submitted a proposal again, my government would be willing to carry this topic to a hopefully good conclusion.

Comments / alternatives are encouraged!

Howie T. Katzman

I like it a lot. Very nice, Mik. It's nice to see a FoD Proposal that could work.

I would peg this at "Strong" rather than "Mild", even though it is not necessarily so strong in end result.

And as an OOC matter, I think I like it.

Freedom of Assembly

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: North Suffolk or Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights, adopted on Aug. 8, 2003, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting the destruction of public and private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the destruction of public and private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in the destruction of public or private property,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and/or organization of political opposition parties, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government and/or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political party that advocates the destruction of public and/or private property as a means to spread terror,

5. CALLS UPON political parties to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political party that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

I really like this draft for the most part, but I have a minor revision to suggest.

I don't see a problem with people destroying their own private property as a form of political expression, only destroying the private property of other persons. So I figure you can rewrite Clause 1 to say that it "REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in the destruction of public property or the private property of other persons".

It's a minor point, but I thought I'd mention it. Initially, I'm inclined to say that the Tire-Burning Torque Empire is all in favor of this puppy.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Initially, I'm inclined to say that the Tire-Burning Torque Empire is all in favor of this puppy.o_O

I would have expected a NatSovNo...


I would peg this at "Strong" rather than "Mild", even though it is not necessarily so strong in end result.Really? All the clauses are pretty much stressing and reminding, not actually mandating.

I would peg this at "Strong" rather than "Mild", even though it is not necessarily so strong in end result.

And as an OOC matter, I think I like it.

OOC: Thanks all. Yeah, the more I think about it, it is not "Mild", especially with the language used in clauses 4 and 6. The point of the resolution would be to really allow nations to see if they really want to open up there elections to "nutjobs" or not, sort of like the Nazi rally daily issue. Do you want to allow that or not? But Strong over Significant ... hmmm, yes I can see that in clause 6.

As for Hot Rodia's comments on clause 1, good catch. People should be allowed to burn their own flags ... or more correctly, this resolution shouldn't clamp down on the symbolic destruction of something when nobody is hurt ...

Perhaps another way to say that (because if you and I were friends and you asked me if you could smack my car with a sledge hammer it is destruction of private property, but with my consent) might be to change clause 1 to read:

REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in the destruction of public property or the private property with the consent of the property's owner,

For private property, ownership is pretty clear ... if you smash my car window and I didn't give you permission, BAD. In the case of public property, you'd still essentially need political approval to say deface a statue, which in some cases a city might issue conditionally. Governments are entrusted to "own" public property, so they'd have to green light destruction.


I've telegrammed North Suffolk, so hopefully they'll weigh in again. :)

o_O

I would have expected a NatSovNo...

Yes, well you said it yourself....

All the clauses are pretty much stressing and reminding, not actually mandating.

Sovereignty friendly, man. I can dig it.

Sovereignty friendly, man. I can dig it.

As can we. We applaud the efforts of the representative from Mikitivity.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Really? All the clauses are pretty much stressing and reminding, not actually mandating.
Yeah, I agree that in actual mandate, it is pretty mild. It just feels stronger. I'm more used to Mild proposals being "if you wouldn't mind awfully..." or "if you'd really like, here's an idea" or "if your mummy lets you...". In tone, rather than in substance, this seems beefier. Also the CONDEMNS clause seems to go beyond Mild (even though in itself it is pretty soft).

Which is, I appreciate, not the most rational defence, and nothing on which to base an actual decision of legality.

Significant would probably be better, though.

EDIT: Not that, but...

Not a statwank argument, by the way. We're actually none too fond of political freedoms.

I'd suggest modifying clauses #1 & 4 as follows (added text in bold):

1. REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in harm to other people and/or the destruction of public or private property,

4. CONDEMNS any political party that advocates harm to other people and/or the destruction of public and/or private property as a means to spread terror,

Here is the most recent draft ... please be aware that I've expanded clause 4 slightly. The RL groups I'm keeping in mind here are the PLO and IRA. Both have a long history of being popular terrorist groups (sorry, they are), but also have the potential to become legitimate political groups by turning away from violence.

I'm going to create a backstory for Mikitivity's "Aslan Faction" (a group of political separatists from Aslan canton) that I can bat around.

Freedom of Assembly

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: North Suffolk or Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights, adopted on Aug. 8, 2003, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting the destruction of public and private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the destruction of public and private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in harm to other people or to public or private property,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and/or organization of political opposition parties, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government and/or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political party that advocates harm to other people or to public and/or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political parties to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political party that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

I also think I should change:

5. CALLS UPON political parties to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

To:

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

(Which includes groups that don't run for office, but are active in politicals, like Flibs' Matrons of Morality -- MOM.) ;)

I also think I should change:

5. CALLS UPON political parties to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

To:

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

(Which includes groups that don't run for office, but are active in politicals, like Flibs' Matrons of Morality -- MOM.) ;)

Indeed, but you can drop the "for" in that. One seeks something; one does not seek for something (nitpicking, I know, but I like nice, tight language).

Indeed, but you can drop the "for" in that. One seeks something; one does not seek for something (nitpicking, I know, but I like nice, tight language).

So do I. Nitpicking is great! :)

H'mm. Maybe the 'APPALLED' and 'AWARE' clauses in the preamble should also mention harm to people as well as damage to property?

H'mm. Maybe the 'APPALLED' and 'AWARE' clauses in the preamble should also mention harm to people as well as damage to property?

Good point.

Good point.

Yup. It will be changed tonight (the MS Word file is sitting on a different PC). :)

Freedom of Assembly

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: North Suffolk or Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting the harm of other people or the destruction of public and private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the harm of others and the destruction of public and private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arena, provided that this opinion does not result in harm to other people or to public or private property,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and/or organization of political opposition parties, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government and/or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political party that advocates harm to other people or to public and/or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political parties to seek for political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political party that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

Rather minor, but should probably nix the date when referencing the UBR.

Rather minor, but should probably nix the date when referencing the UBR.

No problem. :) I'm assuming the reference to the UBR is OK, but the date just implies a real life element?

I'll edit the above draft.

Back referencing is fine. Typically unnecessary, but... it's a preamble.

1. REAFFIRMS the right of individuals to freely express any opinion in a political arenaAs a player, this concerns me as "political arena" is vague. The State Of The Union address is a political arena, but standing on the stage next to the president with a burning flag is hardly appropos. I'm not sure how to tighten this, though. Perhaps "in acceptable public arenas"?

Or are you being more theoretical with that? In which case, shouldn't it be "the public arena"?

One minor quibble: shouldn't APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting the harm of other people or the destruction of public and private property, have an "in" before "the harm" (H'mm, and shouldn't "harm" technically be "harming", as it's "of" other people rather than "to" them?)

I wrote the planned resolution, the reason being is that I beleive the banning of the expression of an extremist belief (an extremist view has many interpretations but I beleive it is one that may offend people of another view point) can lead to a 'black market' of extremism from which those that are vulnerable are picked by these groups to operate underground. I live in England and I beleive that the reason no one knew about the 7/7th bombers was because you are no longer able to join these groups and so intelligence services could not pick them up. I am a hawk and beleive that these groups should be destroyed, so for me to admit that this is a better solution is quite something. My view is, give them the chance to operate in groups, monitor them and when there is enough evidence, arrest everyone and take them through the justice system. Simple and easier than trying to spot those who have gone underground into society.

If I dont get this through this time, if you would be willing to TELEGRAM me in NS than that would be great, especially if you have experience and could help me word it better. Thanks.

I love this argument. Banning a lot of things doesn't work, but it does create a black market. Black markets are bad. They change some political debates into culture wars.

I dig the current form of the resolution from Mikitivity. It seems to walk the fine line between protecting groups fighting to change laws, and prosecuting people that break or conspire to break laws.

Perhaps we need a new thread though, with a better title?

Perhaps we need a new thread though, with a better title?

Hack took care of the thread title. :) Danke sir.


In response to St. Edmundan Antarctic's suggestion:

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting in the harm of other people or the destruction of public and private property,

Technically speaking, harm is both a verb and a noun, so technically we might be able to say "resulting in harm to other people or the destruction of public or private property". This sounds a bit better to me. I also changed public and private to public or private.



As a player, this concerns me as "political arena" is vague. The State Of The Union address is a political arena, but standing on the stage next to the president with a burning flag is hardly appropos. I'm not sure how to tighten this, though. Perhaps "in acceptable public arenas"?



I see your point.

I was thinking that a political arena is when a discussion is being had to make decisions, in contrast to the process of governance where those decisions are announced or implemented. Governance fuels political discussions, but it really is not realistic to expect any government to stand by while somebody wishes to practice "freedom of speech" in the middle of say a Presidential address.

What if I change "arena" to "processes" and if I add "equal" in front of "right of individuals" ...


1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinion in appropriate political processes, provided that this opinion does not result in harm to other people or to public or private property,

What I'm striving for here is that even if I'm from a fringe group, my group will still have access to the political process. An example might be a state held primary ... any political party should have the same opportunity to potentially participate in that political process.

An alternative to arena would be venue ... but venue is more traditionally thought of as a place. "The venue of the crime" or "the concert venue".

I can't honestly think of any further changes I could recommend. This seems in very good shape.

Have you made a decision category-wise yet?

What if I change "arena" to "processes" and if I add "equal" in front of "right of individuals"...That works nicely.


Have you made a decision category-wise yet?Clearly FoD (which is nice). I'm leaning towards Mild, but I wouldn't object if Signifigant was used. I really can't see it rising to the level of Strong.

Just a slight issue. Assembly on private land against the wishes of the owner of the land i.e. trespassing. According to this the right to be on that land will take precedence.

Perhaps:

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble figuratively, on public land or private land with the permission of the landowner, with others who share even extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

What I'm striving for here is that even if I'm from a fringe group, my group will still have access to the political process. An example might be a state held primary ... any political party should have the same opportunity to potentially participate in that political process.


So banning certain political parties (OOC: like the Nazi party is in Germany, IIRC -- and sorry about bringing in Nazis here, but it was the best example I could think of :( ) would be out? Sometimes there are good reasons to exclude certain wackos from the political process.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

So banning certain political parties (OOC: like the Nazi party is in Germany, IIRC -- and sorry about bringing in Nazis here, but it was the best example I could think of :( ) would be out? Sometimes there are good reasons to exclude certain wackos from the political process.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Lots of countries strip political rights from felons.

Banning the party doesn't stop the beliefs. Better to have the issues out in open debate and hopefully argued down.
OOc:On your Germany thing...Germany is having huge issues with a resurgence in Naziism which they hushed up a lot during the World cup. The holocaust might be mandatory in schools, but they don't explain why it happened, just 'this is wrong'. So racial hate crime is on the up.

OOC: I thought the only party excluded in Weimar was the KPD.

IC: You could still stave off the "wackos" by means of ballot access laws, required participation deposits, massive corruption, etc.

Lots of countries strip political rights from felons.

But not assembly and speech, just the right to vote.

Oh, and congratulations on posting something that didn't mention copyright! Woohoo!

But not assembly and speech, just the right to vote.

Oh, and congratulations on posting something that didn't mention copyright! Woohoo!

Do they let felons hold higher offices?

OT: I never bring up my pet issue anymore, unless I'm starting a new thread. I'll hint at it though :) What's harder is resisting the urge to respond when others bring it up. I know I'm the one that would get dinged though, so I'm trying to exercise restraint. But don't worry, when I participate in other issues it's only to lower people's guards, or build allies. (People don't seem to like it when I tell them I don't really care about their issues though.)

Just a slight issue. Assembly on private land against the wishes of the owner of the land i.e. trespassing. According to this the right to be on that land will take precedence.

Perhaps:

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble figuratively, on public land or private land with the permission of the landowner, with others who share even extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

Actually I feel this clause says that you can not trespass in order to meet. For private land you must have permission of the landowner ... for public land you must have permission (ususally a permit or some other approval) to use something in the public trust.

For example, I want my group to protest on the steps of the capital ... this means I need to tell the government that I plan to do this, but this clause also "hints" (mildly) that the government should do this as long as it is a peaceful protest.

Are you OK with this clause? :)

So banning certain political parties (OOC: like the Nazi party is in Germany, IIRC -- and sorry about bringing in Nazis here, but it was the best example I could think of :( ) would be out? Sometimes there are good reasons to exclude certain wackos from the political process.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The Nazis would be conditional based on whatever they were *currently* advocating. Today in RL they are banned because the German Constitution was pretty much written by a combination of German nationalists and American and British military officers, and all three groups were sick of the Nazis. (It is a fair example to bring up though ... most Americans don't know that Germany today is *still* ultra paranoid about anything related to those dark days.)

I think this resolution suggests the minute a "Neo-Nazi" starts advocating violance against people because of their race, *punt* the party is no longer peaceful and would find itself looking for a new platform.

The PLO is something I've had in mind here though ... the resolution is designed to *bait* groups that have terrorist backgrounds into leaving that behind and joining the political process.

The Nazis would be conditional based on whatever they were *currently* advocating. Today in RL they are banned because the German Constitution was pretty much written by a combination of German nationalists and American and British military officers, and all three groups were sick of the Nazis. (It is a fair example to bring up though ... most Americans don't know that Germany today is *still* ultra paranoid about anything related to those dark days.)

OOC: Oh, I know. Some Germans were even uneasy about the waving of their own flag during the World Cup. I mean, holy shit. It was over half a century ago. Most of those expressing concern about it weren't even alive when the bad shit went down.

I think this resolution suggests the minute a "Neo-Nazi" starts advocating violance against people because of their race, *punt* the party is no longer peaceful and would find itself looking for a new platform.

The PLO is something I've had in mind here though ... the resolution is designed to *bait* groups that have terrorist backgrounds into leaving that behind and joining the political process.

OOC: I can see the PLO thing. Sorta like the IRA and Sinn Fein were encouraged to join the political process. The trouble is, though, that you run the possibility of putting terrorists in power, as was done with the PLO, and they don't drop their backgrounds but, instead, just turn a blind eye to other groups, like Hamas, who act as a proxy for the PLO's former terrorist activities. It's a very difficult issue, because, while I agree with your basic intent, there's still the question of passive support for terrorist activities -- and with this proposal, potentially, by the government of a state itself.

OOC: Oh, I know. Some Germans were even uneasy about the waving of their own flag during the World Cup. I mean, holy shit. It was over half a century ago. Most of those expressing concern about it weren't even alive when the bad shit went down.

And Baranxtu (he is a member of the IDU) mentioned there *are* present day Germans that *still* want to claim part of Poland. He was talking about a very small (and not well liked) minority. Nobody thinks it will happen ...

But the point behind this resolution is to give idiots like that a chance to voice their opinions in political venues instead of becoming terrorists. Today there really aren't any German neos whom are crossing over into Poland and causing troubles, but in a small way, perhaps by allowing idiotic parties to just voice their frustrations is enough to keep things safer. :)



OOC: I can see the PLO thing. Sorta like the IRA and Sinn Fein were encouraged to join the political process. The trouble is, though, that you run the possibility of putting terrorists in power, as was done with the PLO, and they don't drop their backgrounds but, instead, just turn a blind eye to other groups, like Hamas, who act as a proxy for the PLO's former terrorist activities. It's a very difficult issue, because, while I agree with your basic intent, there's still the question of passive support for terrorist activities -- and with this proposal, potentially, by the government of a state itself.

Yup, but no single resolution is perfect. Though in the case of the PLO, Hamas, and Israel situtation, I actually honestly believe it would simply be nice to just airlift Israel to some nice land in California ... moving the Californians to Oregon or Mexico and then test to see if all of these former and current terrorist organizations in the Middle-east would turn on each other or fall apart.

In relation to the current events, I actually think Israel does have a right to protect itself from rocket attacks ... so I'm actually symapthic towards Israel right now. But the PLO / Hamas and other groups exist not because of *domestic* tensions and political disinfranchisement, but because of international issues.

This resolution will *not* change tensions due to international terrorist organizations. For example, the IRA is not interested in being politically active in Canada ... so a Canadian government that gives the IRA a political voice isn't going to be an incentive to stop.

I think our previous resolutions on international terrorism are our best bets for dealing with those sorts of situtations. But perhaps we should be thankful that the mods in NationStates are *not* ever going to allow us to create a situtation like Israel / Palestine. ;)

Banning the party doesn't stop the beliefs. Better to have the issues out in open debate and hopefully argued down.
OOc:On your Germany thing...Germany is having huge issues with a resurgence in Naziism which they hushed up a lot during the World cup. The holocaust might be mandatory in schools, but they don't explain why it happened, just 'this is wrong'. So racial hate crime is on the up.

:)

That is the point of this proposed resolution ... by giving individuals and groups a chance to express themselves, the info is in the open *and* their own feelings about access might prevent them from turning to violence.

Oh, I honestly hope this proposal reaches quorum, because Germany is a very interesting place ... and yes, hate crimes are increasing there ... and the proposal will hopefully get us all to think about RL and perhaps incorporate some mirrored situtations into our own roleplay.

Me, this weekend I hope to start putting Mikitivity's "Aslan Faction" up on Wikipedia. Though last night I decided Miervatia needed an orchestra instead of a terrorist group. Funny how that happens ... every time I start working on political parties, terrorists, accidents, or the mafia, I end up making a corporation or new place instead. ;)

OOc:...The holocaust might be mandatory in schools
Sick as it might be, the wording of that amuses me.

Do they let felons hold higher offices?

OT: I never bring up my pet issue anymore, unless I'm starting a new thread. I'll hint at it though :) What's harder is resisting the urge to respond when others bring it up. I know I'm the one that would get dinged though, so I'm trying to exercise restraint. But don't worry, when I participate in other issues it's only to lower people's guards, or build allies. (People don't seem to like it when I tell them I don't really care about their issues though.)

The NS answer is it depends on domestic laws. :)

In RL I'm thinking of Lydon LaRouche (sp?), whom ran for President while in jail. I thought there may have been another famous candidate ... I want to say William Jennings Bryan, but I could be wrong ... who was arrested for a short time while running for President.

I'm curious about your pet issue, because I don't know what it is ... so you can telegram me and ask. :)


edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Debs ran for US President while in jail. In 1918 he was arrested and disinfranchised ... he ran for President in 1920 and had 3% of the US Presidential vote!!! And he happens to be a good RL exampe for this particular proposal, as his political opinions were illegal in the US, but he did not advocate violence (rather the opposite).

Easing this back on topic...

And taking a brutal tack that I would never do with my country...

I can see opressive regimes liking this concept, actually, and truly adopting its tenants. It gives them the perfect out. The first anti-government group that's brave enough to take advantage is suddenly out in public. "Vigilanties" can then kill them all. The oppressive government continues to hunt down people meeting in secret claiming that if they don't take advantage of the "liberal freedom of assembly", they must be terrorist cells. And, of course, they're working "really hard" on hunting down those vigilanties who keep killing people who do make use of the new laws.

Man... sounds like something my evil puppet would do.

Easing this back on topic...

And taking a brutal tack that I would never do with my country...

I can see opressive regimes liking this concept, actually, and truly adopting its tenants. It gives them the perfect out. The first anti-government group that's brave enough to take advantage is suddenly out in public. "Vigilanties" can then kill them all. The oppressive government continues to hunt down people meeting in secret claiming that if they don't take advantage of the "liberal freedom of assembly", they must be terrorist cells. And, of course, they're working "really hard" on hunting down those vigilanties who keep killing people who do make use of the new laws.

Man... sounds like something my evil puppet would do.


Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Over time I would think a nation doing this would gain an international reputation for being "brutal".

Easing this back on topic...

And taking a brutal tack that I would never do with my country...

I can see opressive regimes liking this concept, actually, and truly adopting its tenants. It gives them the perfect out. The first anti-government group that's brave enough to take advantage is suddenly out in public. "Vigilanties" can then kill them all. The oppressive government continues to hunt down people meeting in secret claiming that if they don't take advantage of the "liberal freedom of assembly", they must be terrorist cells. And, of course, they're working "really hard" on hunting down those vigilanties who keep killing people who do make use of the new laws.

Man... sounds like something my evil puppet would do.

Evil puppet? Who on earth would have an evil puppet? That's ludicrous. :cool:

Sick as it might be, the wording of that amuses me.

I could see a really twisted proposal based on that idea.

Title: Holocaust Education Act

The NationStates United Nations,

OBSERVING that the Holocaust was a terrible tragedy;

BELIEVING that all persons should be fully informed about the Holocaust so that they understand how atrocious it was;

CONSIDERING that exploratory learning that gives students direct experience with the subject matter is a very effective teaching method;

RESOLVES that full knowledge of the Holocaust a part of the education of all persons;

MANDATES that the Holocaust be instituted in all schools.

The NS answer is it depends on domestic laws. :)

In RL I'm thinking of Lydon LaRouche (sp?), whom ran for President while in jail. I thought there may have been another famous candidate ... I want to say William Jennings Bryan, but I could be wrong ... who was arrested for a short time while running for President.

I'm curious about your pet issue, because I don't know what it is ... so you can telegram me and ask. :)


edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Debs ran for US President while in jail. In 1918 he was arrested and disinfranchised ... he ran for President in 1920 and had 3% of the US Presidential vote!!! And he happens to be a good RL exampe for this particular proposal, as his political opinions were illegal in the US, but he did not advocate violence (rather the opposite).

You asked me about my pet issue (it's in my sig, and all over the journal linked to there) (it's also in in Gruenberg's sig (from a different perspective though, I don't think he likes me))....

You also provided a link to a wikipedia article...

If you aren't careful people might start accusing me of being your puppet :)

A lot of people run for president that don't meet the legal requirements of the office :) I have a friend who has received 2 votes for president every year since he was around 16.

I believe governments exist only to protect rights (although apparently I disagree with some about what is a right and what isn't). Some rights are more improtant then others, and those need to be protected first. The freedom of speach is one of the highest rights, so my support is almost guaranteed of a resolution that strongly supports the freedom of speach.

Evil puppet? Who on earth would have an evil puppet? That's ludicrous. :cool:

Oddly enough it's my main nation that's "evil." All my puppets are good nations that escaped the evil one.

Evil puppet? Who on earth would have an evil puppet? That's ludicrous. :cool:

Don't make me bring mine in here. :p

"Of course I'd rather keep a flawed law on the books rather then repeal it hoping someone will eventually write a replacement." - Discoraversalism

Our delegation seems to be popular in peoples sigs these days :) I guess that's a kind of fame.

Unfortunately, all legislation is flawed. All good constitutions get amended.

The UN doesn't even make detailed legislation, ideally it makes legislation with borad possible interpretations, leaving national sovereignty as mush room as possible.

A replacement will get written for most repealed laws. Either people will improve it, or they will write a blocker. Our current legislative process has serious flaws. No one can propose amendments to legislation without permission of the author of said legislation. It is tricky to "fix" anything.

Why should people wait to draft replacement until after the repeal has passed?

Anyway, you may have noticed we have good replacement work going on in this very thread. Are you against this process?

A lot of people run for president that don't meet the legal requirements of the office :) I have a friend who has received 2 votes for president every year since he was around 16.

I believe governments exist only to protect rights (although apparently I disagree with some about what is a right and what isn't). Some rights are more improtant then others, and those need to be protected first. The freedom of speach is one of the highest rights, so my support is almost guaranteed of a resolution that strongly supports the freedom of speach.

OOC:
In California election law, only recognized candidates will have votes cast for them counted. "Mickey Mouse" is literally throwing away your vote. In order to get on the ballot candidates need a number of signatures (I'm not sure if for statewide offices if they need to submit them once to the Secretary of State or to each County Clerk). So if you've been writting in your friend, chances are his "votes" are not being recognized at all ... though the rest of your ballot may count.

IC:
Freedom of Assembly is similar to Freedom of Speech and something my government holds dearly too. But has the Most Glorious Hack pointed out, in the wrong hands this proposed resolution can be used to smoke out discontents and thus could be abused in spite of our well meaning intentions. I think that a government that might break its "social contract" with its people via this resolution likely already is, thus I don't find this risk of abuse to be a point against this resolution at all (and I'll point out that I think the Most Glorious Hack wasn't raising it as such, but rather trying to address a side-effect so we might be able to provide answers should somebody else bring up the same or a similar point -- the comment was fair and helpful).


On an administrative note, I'll clean up the present draft later today (with luck) and repost it. I've posted one draft on my regional forum. I've tried to contact the original authoring nation, North Suffolk, as the *idea* was theirs ... I'll check with my office to see if Mikitivity intelligence info has any updates on the international activities of their UN Ambassadors.

My question to the group is, at what point should I submit this proposal *without* campaigning, in order to test interest? I'd like to campaign for this after I've first spoken with the feeder region Delegates and UN experts, but that can happen concurrent to a version of the proposal riding through the now (sadly small) proposal queue.

Howie T. Katzman

Freedom of Assembly

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: North Suffolk or Mikitivity or ?

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting harm to other people or the destruction of public or private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the harm of others or the destruction of public or private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation or coordination of political opposition organizations, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political organization that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property,/me idly wonders where "opinions" came from, but isn't concerned. However, was it decided that we weren't going to specifically mention the right to damage your own property (ie: flag burning)?

/me idly wonders where "opinions" came from, but isn't concerned. However, was it decided that we weren't going to specifically mention the right to damage your own property (ie: flag burning)?

The opinions were formerly singular / opinion. I just decided it might be nice to hold more than one opinion on political topics. ;)

We did want to allow the right to damage your own property ... I can change clause 1 to read:


1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,

I thought that was included in here at one point ... must have been while I was at work (the Word file sits here at home).

I will go back and reread the thread, as we might want to make it clear *where* groups can assemble. Or at least be able to point to a few of the clauses that might govern that.

I like it.

However, was it decided that we weren't going to specifically mention the right to damage your own property (ie: flag burning)?
Probably best to not mention it. Flag burning is a odd issue in and of itself ... I mean it's a burning flag it could cause someone to catch on fire. But there are cases where your own property isn't completely your own. If you replace the notion of a flag with a corporate registered trademarked symbol then there are certain acts that most corporations would definitely want to not permit because it could be seen as damaging the corporate image which they have worked hard to maintain.

The People pf Jacobic belive this is an excellent idea and hope that your efforts continue to get this to a final stage and thus quorum. Good luck and good work!!

Prime Minister of Jacobic

Well, I wasn't meaning to have flag burning specifically included. Mik's addition of "private property without consent" should suffice. I suppose people could loophole wank that, but what's the point of doing so on a Mild Proposal?

1. Thank you to all for the terrific the input. Since I've not heard a reply back from North Suffolk, I'm assuming they are busy and I've submitted the proposal. I do not intent to telegram campaign for this yet, but instead wish to see how much support this proposal gathers (next to the Ban Caffeine, Ban Tankers, and countless other "great" proposals I'll cry myself to sleep for a week plus if this proposal doesn't get at least 20 endorsements).

2. I love the new spell check feature added to the proposal queue. I can't believe it has been that long since I've submitted a proposal, but I've been pretty busy since Mitigation of Reservoirs (still am, but I've had some spare time lately -- yeah).

3. I made one relatively minor change to the latest draft, clause 2 where I expanded the text to now read "share even extreme political views in appropriate venues" ... I do not want protesters gathering in my shower, and I could see some clever monkey doing just that. ;)

Text of the "Freedom of Assembly" proposal as submitted:

The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions have moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting harm to other people or the destruction of public or private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the harm of others or the destruction of public or private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views in appropriate venues, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and coordination of political opposition organizations, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political organization that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.


Thanks again.

3. I made one relatively minor change to the latest draft, clause 2 where I expanded the text to now read "share even extreme political views in appropriate venues" ... I do not want protesters gathering in my shower, and I could see some clever monkey doing just that. ;)

*whistles innocently*

I have given you your first approval.

*whistles innocently*

OOC: Ah, but the joke would have been on any would be protesters ... I'm a bachelor. Thank god for Carl's Jr.

What strength is this proposal?

I believe the current plan is to slot it at Mild; right, Mik?

Thank you. I was of the opinion that 'Significant' may be more appropriate but having read through the proposal again I now agree with 'Mild'.

It is a fine proposal. Begging your pardon, though, I would prefer to see a more aggressive approach, with enforcing clauses rather than requests. I understand, however, that UN legislators are currently of a mind to shy away from such strident legislation.

Thank you. I was of the opinion that 'Significant' may be more appropriate but having read through the proposal again I now agree with 'Mild'.

It is a fine proposal. Begging your pardon, though, I would prefer to see a more aggressive approach, with enforcing clauses rather than requests. I understand, however, that UN legislators are currently of a mind to shy away from such strident legislation.

It wasn't really obvious to me either ... currently it is Mild and a few of us discussed that point earlier. I think the reason why isn't the clause verbs, but there are a few loopholes ... "appropriate venues" (a last minute) addition is a good example. Repressive governments might consider appropriate venues to be in front of a firing squad while liberal governments are probably going with my opinion "not in your national leader's bathrooms, OK". NOTE: even the liberal governments might encourage protests and political assembly at the HotRodian embassies. ;)

Approved
(although personally I'd probably have defined its strength as 'Significant'...)

NOTE: even the liberal governments might encourage protests and political assembly at the HotRodian embassies. ;)

That could be fun. Protesting is a professional sport in HotRodia. I just hope their protestors come prepared for a good competition.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

(although personally I'd probably have defined its strength as 'Significant'...)I wouldn't object to Significant. I would need to be persuaded for Strong, though.

The proposal failed to meet quorum without any telegram campaigning. But I did get around to saving a list of most of the UN Delegates that had endorsed it as of early last evening.

I've resubmitted the proposal and removed two typos I found in the previous draft (nothing substantive has changed). I'll be out of town this weekend, and thus unable to campaign for it, but last go around it had over half of the 123 required endorsements. If it does not reach quorum this time, then I plan to resubmit it once more and begin a modest telegram campaign (asking UN Delegates that have previous endorsed it to do so again and hunting for a few others).


The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution the Universal Bill of Rights, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions has moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting in harm to other people or the destruction of public or private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the harm of others or the destruction of public or private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views in appropriate venues, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and coordination of political opposition organizations, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political organization that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

How can I help with the effort?

Well, it hasn't reached the halfway mark without telegram campaigning on this (the second) submission.

I will be out next weekend and moderately busy this week in the evenings ... and potentially I could be working nights at the California State Fair, but I'll have a better idea when I plan to actually send out the telegrams. I'll start compiling the list of nations that have endorsed it and a few others that might be interested. If you'll have some time perhaps early on the week of the 21st I could send you a form letter and a few nations to telegram, which would help a great deal. :)

Well, it hasn't reached the halfway mark without telegram campaigning on this (the second) submission.

I will be out next weekend and moderately busy this week in the evenings ... and potentially I could be working nights at the California State Fair, but I'll have a better idea when I plan to actually send out the telegrams. I'll start compiling the list of nations that have endorsed it and a few others that might be interested. If you'll have some time perhaps early on the week of the 21st I could send you a form letter and a few nations to telegram, which would help a great deal. :)

Sounds good to me :) I will also be posting on these threads, actively recruiting, etc. Any UN action to protect more individual's rights has me on it's side :)

OT Rant: I just don't believe in anyone's right to own 1's or 0's.

Sounds good to me :) I will also be posting on these threads, actively recruiting, etc. Any UN action to protect more individual's rights has me on it's side :)

OT Rant: I just don't believe in anyone's right to own 1's or 0's.

It will be appreciated.

Unrelated to the resolution, but to your comment on property rights ... I (Michael, not Katzman) believe in the ownership of art, such as music. So I see some shades of gray in property rights. ;) But let's save that for the time when somebody comes up with a proposal or resolution dealing with "Fair Use" or promoting the arts. :)

It will be appreciated.

Unrelated to the resolution, but to your comment on property rights ... I (Michael, not Katzman) believe in the ownership of art, such as music. So I see some shades of gray in property rights. ;) But let's save that for the time when somebody comes up with a proposal or resolution dealing with "Fair Use" or promoting the arts. :)

IC: Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. A long time ago it could be limited to the spoken word. Then we started communicatign by the written word. We organized ourselves into groups specifically for discussing, writing, promoting ideas. Those of us in the digital age now communicate greatly through electronic medium.

A lot of "speech" occurs through indirect channels. Many artists are also trying to deliver a political message from a counter culture. Some people make games to promote an idea.

It all get's tied up in culture various culture wars. Each group takes the "speech" of other groups, and tries to counter, or alter the message.

It's all wonderfuly complicated.

Unfortunately, sometimes a particular subculture grabs hold of the reigns of power, and starts using the government apparatus to try to control the speach of their opponents. This can happen any number of ways.

This proposal serves to bolster the UN's protection of the freedom of speech through one of it's most important aspects. The freedom to peacably assemble. Many corrupt nations forbid even peaceful protests, if they oppose the message of the state.

It will be hard fight, for some of these corrupt nations are powerful UN members. However if we just give the resolution the right title it ought to pass :) Most people don't read the contents, or check the discussion thread.

OOC: Could we edit the first page to reflect the current proposal?

Just FYI, this proposal and the Alcohol Tariff Reduction proposal both failed to establish a quorum this weekend, so I've resubmitted both. I conducted a modest telegram campaign contacting somewhere around 150-200 delegates, but the Freedom of Assembly proposal actually had fewer endorsements its third time in the proposal queue.

If it doesn't meet quorum this time, I'll submit it again and telegram intensively for it this weekend. I don't think we should be too worried, as I'm hoping the lack of interest is due to the fact that there are multiple proposals queued up to reach the UN floor.

Just FYI, this proposal and the Alcohol Tariff Reduction proposal both failed to establish a quorum this weekend, so I've resubmitted both.

And I've approved both of them again.

First, many of my staff members are on vacation right now, so we don't have the resources to mount a telegram campaign. However, given that there are currently only two other proposals that have established quorum and thus waiting in the resolution queue, I've gone ahead and resubmitted the proposal "Freedom of Assembly". I'll assign staff to collect information and build a telegram list for next week, as I'm sure this proposal will require a campaign in order to establish quorum.

-Howie T. Katzman

This proposal was resubmitted early this morning. Late tonight my office will conduct a telegram campaign based on complied lists of nations that have endorsed previous proposals and this one.

We'd appreciate any volunteers. The 4th time this proposal was submitted, it recieved over 60 endorsements with no campaign (thanks to many of the UN Delegates that are active here). At one point the proposal had close to 90 endorsements. I think with a campaign that it can reach quorum and the resolution queue.

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

I love this proposal and will do what I can to support it. Being incredibly new to NS I may not have much clout but am willing to put in some effort in my region.

Could we get an approval link here? Perhaps on the front page too?

Thanks, and Disco, those are good ideas:

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=assembly

I'll start the telegrams tonight ... last night I was partaking West Coast Sliders ... and later last night I was returning them.

Thanks, and Disco, those are good ideas:

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=assembly

I'll start the telegrams tonight ... last night I was partaking West Coast Sliders ... and later last night I was returning them.

No problem. Now seems like the right time to act, I here the queue is empty :)

OOC: I may have some time today -- I would have started last night, but yesterday a tree feel down and nailed my car. :( This morning I've already arranged things with my insurance, but since I rent I need to talk to my apartment complex ... obviously my car was damaged (no passengers are riding in my car now unless they are *very* short -- the roof is dented in and the fiberglass modeling that protects the window was completely cracked).

Needless to say, *after* I have a nice "chat" with my apartment complex (which tried to call me), that the best thing for me to do (that doesn't involve the word postal) would be to put on my diplomatic hat and telegram campaign.

If anybody is around today, I'm first in the queue with hours left. A coordinated campaign may work. I can telegram you a list of as many nations as you like in about 1.5 hours.

Now to hit those showers and deal with my management, whom I already don't care for.

OOC: I may have some time today -- I would have started last night, but yesterday a tree feel down and nailed my car. :( This morning I've already arranged things with my insurance, but since I rent I need to talk to my apartment complex ... obviously my car was damaged (no passengers are riding in my car now unless they are *very* short -- the roof is dented in and the fiberglass modeling that protects the window was completely cracked).

Needless to say, *after* I have a nice "chat" with my apartment complex (which tried to call me), that the best thing for me to do (that doesn't involve the word postal) would be to put on my diplomatic hat and telegram campaign.

If anybody is around today, I'm first in the queue with hours left. A coordinated campaign may work. I can telegram you a list of as many nations as you like in about 1.5 hours.

Now to hit those showers and deal with my management, whom I already don't care for.

I'm sorry, Mik. That's awful. :(

Yeah, and I've been in this complex for 7.5 years ... and this morning "Well, we're not resonsible for a tree hitting your car." Me, "Well, my insurance wants the information and frankly I'll let them handle it ... it wasn't my tree and I'm gonna be out a lot of money. It sucks." The complex will try and screw them and me -- but I'll give it a few days to work itself out.


Back on subject ... the telegrams have begun.

Good luck!

OK, during the UN update tonight the 6th round (I could be off by a round, but I think this is right) submission received 106 endorsements and was 16 endorsements shy of reaching quorum. Due to work I wasn't able to telegram until today *after* the business with my insurance company. I'm pretty tired, but in order to provide some continuity, I resubmitted the proposal.

Now I'm asking for help. I will give you a list of however many people endorsed the proposal *last* time along with a thank you letter and link to the latest submission. If we can get these 106 nations to endorse it again *and* if the nations I contacted get back from the weekend, I think it will reach the floor sometime in the next week or two. :)

A number of nations did *not* endorse the proposal but were kind enough to telegram me why and wished us luck. (In an OOC sense they really liked it ... they just didn't feel it fit well with their government -- which you can't argue against that.)

It should be fun. The way I'm considering now describing this is, "Nazis are stupid, we all know that ... but the minute we tell people they can't be Nazis, we become just as stupid as them. This proposal is to remind us of that and allow nutcases to be viewed as what they are, while discouraging them from the path of violence." That is it in a nutshell.

Good night ... long day, I'm tired. :(

I truly wish you the best of luck, Mik. I've been thrilled to see the effort you put into turning this thing I stumbled onto in the Proposal list into a really good Proposal. I really hope that this reaches quorum. You've gone above and beyond the call of duty on this one.

Thanks! :)

I think this will turn into an interesting (perhaps close) debate / vote, and I honestly think it will soon be reaching quorum. If it fails on the floor, oh well, the idea was brought up, and the thought process will have been there.

OOC: Well I've approved it, even though I can't imagine Felix supporting it IC.

I have skimmed through it, but haven't read it carefully yet. Endorsed it though because I sort of know, and do trust, the author.

OOC: Well I've approved it, even though I can't imagine Felix supporting it IC.

OOC: The Furtherment of Democracy category really is about promoting democracies ... which this one does. So naturally I'm expecting many nations to pull the "we can't just let everybody form political parties" card. At least I'm hoping that will be the debate and not "This resolution cures cancer". ;)

At least I'm hoping that will be the debate and not "This resolution cures cancer". ;)

You mean this resolution won't cure cancer? Damn, and here I was supporting it all this time because I thought that it did just that.;)

You mean this resolution won't cure cancer? Damn, and here I was supporting it all this time because I thought that it did just that.;)

Sad but true.

This proposed resolution also will not:

Hunt and Kill Invasive Species (Ballast Water)
Blow Up Killer Asteroids (Tracking Near Earth Objects)
Slow Down the Spread of HIV/AIDS (Needle Sharing Prevention)
Paradrop Emergency Response Teams (Good Samaritan Laws)
Install Warning Klaxons for Tsunami (Tsunami Warning System)
Clone THOR, GOD OF THUNDER, to Prevent any Disaster (Natural Disaster Act)
Knock Hole Into Big & Tall Dams to Save Fishies (Mitigation of Large Reservoirs)


And sadly, it won't Cure Cancer. But it will allow the public to see hateful groups like the Klan for what they are ... idiots. Mikitivity is looking forward to a new reality radio show, "The things stupid people will say." The show will feature translated political opposition parties saying really stupid things ... it will be kinda like how when a Mikitivitian is down, he or she travels to lesser developed nations to think, "Wow, electricity is nice ... maybe life in the Thuvians isn't so bad afterall." But now we hope to bring this back hope via radio, as the number of nutjobs saying stupid things will likely increase compared to the nutjobs that simply do stupid things (the ones that do stupid things are more likely to kill themselves in the process and don't seek out the media as often). ;)

Should this proposal reach the resolution queue, I'm going to ask that this thread be locked and that I be allowed to start a new thread / poll.

Today has been well, as the proposal already has 85 endorsements in less than 24-hours. Thanks to all of the UN Delegates and Members whom have been so patient with this proposal.


In the campaign course I've been asked to basically defend the importance of this proposal ... which I personally feel every UN proposal sponsor should always been willing to do (if you can't defend your idea, then why are you sponsoring it). :)

Since other nations may be sitting on the fence, here is a mixed In Character / out of Character reply I sent to one kind Delegate (his/her nation has not yet endorsed the proposal, but did point out that if he/she can be convinced, might).

Cool and thank you. :) I'll give it a shot! And since others might wonder, you may repost this anywhere you like -- I will post my letter on the UN forum.

I believe that the idea of "Freedom of Assembly" has merit on two grounds (one international / one domestic):


1. International (since this is the UN we are talking about)

When talking with the Delegate of Gatesville, whom has some reservations on this proposal on "sovereignty" related grounds I pointed out in RL examples such as middle eastern terrorist organizations, political disenfranchisement in one location promotes recruitment into violent organizations ... many of these organizations don't limit their violent acts solely in the nation they feel they have no say in, but also will turn to other nations that they either see as third parties that are related or whom they *want* at the neogitating table. A perfect example: the World Trade Center Attacks ... the groups that took responsibility were international terrorists and claimed that they want to end Israel's occupation of the Palestinian lands ... but feeling that they had no say in US policy took their violence to the skies.

I'm not so naive to think *one* "mild" resolution will remove this, but I honestly do believe that if there are viable and legal political parties in places like Israel for Palestinians -- this is just an example from RL ... we can create anything we want in our fictional world ;) ---, that terrorist groups would have a harder time recruiting people willing to blow themselves up. Every fewer terrorist gives our international governments a better chance to stop this.


2. Domestic

There is a domestic benefit too ... and here is where the rules of allowing political parties is but one more tool to make governments more stable. Democracies survive based on the knowledge that after an election, the losing party only has to wait another 4, 5, or 10 or so years for the next election and a fair chance to swing things back in favour. For example, if Americans really thought that Bush was truely evil (I'm not a fan of his, but I don't think he is evil like men like Hitler were) and that opposition parties would not be allowed to try later to oppose his ideas, then some nut case would do exactly what happened to Regan, Kennedy, etc *or* we'd see more military coupes.

A "Furtherment of Democracy" resolution takes power away from one political group or the military and puts it back into the hands of all citizens. This is why the "Right to Assemble" is the *first* amendment of the US Bill of Rights / Constitution. :) It is a key part of the right of freedom of speech.

In NationStates, we've explored sexual freedoms to no end (frankly I'm tired of that) and we've dealt with trials, press, bearing arms, etc. But for several years we've not addressed in any detail the right to "organize" and form political groups.

Assembly is really not just about organizing, but a restatement that governments are made of people, for people. It is the *way* we actually get to apply all our other rights, and thus perhaps one of the most important freedoms.

Even in a government where elections are limited and leadership serves long terms, the freedom of assembly is still incredibly important ... as a leadership that goes too far from the wishes of its people risks revolution, however, assembly provides those whom are not in the ruling party a peaceful way to voice their opinions ... opinions that the ruling party can always choose to implement or choose to challenge.

This proposal isn't saying minority parties (especially violent nutjobs -- my government really depises them) have to "win". It just says, "Let the others gather together in peaceful ways and say what they want."

Howie T. Katzman

If this reaches the UN floor, I'd like to divide the above into *two* justifications ... one that is completely In Character and one that is OOC and talks about RL (since many players better relate to RL examples).

I'm now asking that if any of you have imagined (especially developed) some domestic or international terrorist organizations that I be allowed to make reference to them in the UN Debate. I'd love it is there are NSWiki articles ... if Gruen's proposal reaches the floor first (4 votes away Gruen!), then I'll try to create Mikitivity's "Aslan Faction", which historically was a separatist movement in Aslan canton that has taken hostages and threatend to destroy Risden River flood control projects. Aslan Faction will be designed as the "wow, this kinda works" example. Naturally I'll want more of those and "Dude, we tried this with the 'Blows-Things Up Parties' and it didn't work."

Clone THOR, GOD OF THUNDER, to Prevent any Disaster (Natural Disaster Act)
Knock Hole Into Big & Tall Dams to Save Fishies (Mitigation of Large Reservoirs)
Aww, man... I only voted for these two because of THOR, GOD OF THUNDER and because of the widdle fishies.

Aww.

Aww, man... I only voted for these two because of THOR, GOD OF THUNDER and because of the widdle fishies.

Aww.

Copycat.:p

Copycat.:p

Copy, eh? Perhaps we are really dealing with a cloned HACK, GOD OF PROPOSAL PLUNDER!

The normal Hack might sometimes deat proposals that look as if they'll reach the resolution queue, but the cloned HACK just takes them all out ... if they aren't completely legal that is.

Beware proposal sponsors ... you had better hope that Mr. Fristastic has tight control on cloned HACK or that the Invisible Mod (aka HotRodia) can through some defensive pleas your way when cloned HACK decides to us all down! *eep*

Gruenberg has approved this proposal, and we wish our friends from Mikitivity best luck in getting it to quorum. We have not yet decided whether to vote for it or not, though, should it do so: on the one hand, it is very sovereignty-friendly, and anyway we find nothing objectionable in it; on the other hand, endorsing proposals requesting democratic reform would set a dangerous precedent. We may well abstain, and quietly hope it passes.

I wish you the very best of luck with this. The New Cultural Revolution has instructed me to endorse resolutions of quality that seek to promote greater political freedom in UN member states: this is one such resolution.

Benedictions,

Approvals: 122 (Ground Defenders, The Isle of Duckia, Daedra1a, Witchcliff, Crypto-Debauchery, New Stuvotopia, Talsin, Uber Goblins of Nirude, Gruenberg, Mandlandia, Iron Felix, NewTexas, Leg-ends, OmniTech Company, Equalitarianism, Kiloria, Travoltastan, Budingerschik, Marmotry, Malabra, Severnaya Novgoznya, Tarmsden, Chandelier, Progressive Islands, The Fighting Mongii, Allech-Atreus, Thymlia, Orubu, Hadristan, Hermlandia, Aggies07, Billieland, All Peoples and stuff, WZ Forums, Sephy Worshipers, Leians, Vekkeul, Arenaea and Alesium, Huerndy, Multiple Factories, Masoniata, Imperial Moose, Flaumboden, Riddim, Bordoria, The Yellow House, Misplaced States, Futuristic America, Duke Albert Norbert, Mike Kane, Yuanda Zhu, Jey, Absintheurs, Congressional Dimwits, Great Bights Mum, Mitch Mitchellson, FreeChina, Ikonja, Ubu-Rex, Rezslekovia, Shatnerland, Byronism, Sejosk, Impertinence, Carebis Kahlne, Brethland, Nobeldragon, La Provincia di Roma, Pickwick and Yuna, The Wolf Guardians, The San Luis Valley, Mommy D, Nuevo Cimmeria, Jastreb, Flibbleites, Kanu Tanu, Hurdegaryp, Venitell, UltimaWeapon, TheUnitedStates111, The Derrak Quadrant, Ziggiz, Marcinesia, XarousLand, Mother Russian, Transcientopia, Lackland, NickBlasta, Lord of Hosts, Ala cuisene, Crushtania, Olverica, Hackteria, Geash, Vasankaria, Nicoshore, Gaiah, Irretrievable Pebbles, ARBCO Industries, KingRoss, The Talisman, Deadly Death Zombies, Jazz and class, Neo-Platonia, OCR, Aqua-Sulis, Akmal, Havl, Kindjal, The Gibbs, Rubina, His highness the nick, ST-Onet, Mike Love, Pensilva, New Pattonia, Tonuria, The Overlook Hotel, Wannahockahocka, Wolololia, WHOPSES, Killer Kitty)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


It is exactly in the queue, so it is still vunerable for a day or so. I am expecting more endorsements though, as I telegrammed hundreds of Delegates this weekend. (Got stumps for fingers now.) ;)

The Necrophilia proposal is 4 endorsements shy of reaching quorum, so it should hit the UN Floor first (tomorrow with luck). That gives players a few days to flesh out any Roleplay elements you might wish to bring up in the debate.

I plan on working on Aslan Faction tonight. Though I got distracted by raccoons and powerplants (other things Mikitivity will soon feature) -- yeah, I'm more interested in a Waschbar or hydroelectric plant than a terrorist -- must be a sign that I'm a good 'lil engineer. ;)

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic supports this proposal, as we did on the other occasions when it was [less successfully] submitted.


(OOC: It had already reached quorum before I could get there, but I've added my approval since then. However the region's currently holding an election for Delegate and it looks as though I might lose that status before the measure actually comes to vote...)

As the UN currently has 2,022 Regional Delegates, a proposal needs 122 approvals to achieve quorum.Approvals: 141That looks like a pretty solid buffer, Mik. You should be golden.

i am a big fun of freedom of speach, but:

1)"REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent"

i belive in strong freedom of speech. i also belive that people can make their decisions and are not sheep. so i will not support a resolution that does not allow full freedom of speech.

there are 2 problems with "opinions result in harm" ideea:

1) if someone tells me to kill someone i'll never do that just because they tell me. so i think that you can't link a proposal to a antion in this way, making the person that does the proposal responsable for another person's action (as long as they are all free individuals ). so i'm against this part.
2)even if the person doing the proposal is responsable for the action, sometimes the action is good : someone that advocates a revolution against a evil dictatorship and it happens and the evil dictator gets killed.

"CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence," :same problem as before, people should be allowed to say "kill the president" and not be prosecuted (as long as they don't force someone to do it). but if someone kills the president only the killer is responsable (if he wasn't forced to do it).

But although it's not perfect (in my point of view) it's around there. and it's mild, not strong. so i say... YES.

That looks like a pretty solid buffer, Mik. You should be golden.

OOC:
Thanks! When should I create the poll? I don't want to steal attention from the Outlaw Necrophilia resolution -- it is now its time to shine, but I also would really like the official debate to have a Delegate / Non-Delegate Yes, No, Abstain poll. I'll use one of the early posts to link back to this thread.

IC:
Vladase, I appreciate your comments on the proposal, and would like to request that if a new thread is started once the proposal reaches the UN Floor as a resolution that you please consider reposting your government's opinion there -- I'd very much like it represented in the official record. :)

Hm. Probably start a new thread when the current is about to expire to keep the cross traffic to a minimum. Also, it would reduce the clutter on the thread wanting things changed (there'll be enough of that once it's at vote).

So... you should have a few days to finally relax.

Hm. Probably start a new thread when the current is about to expire to keep the cross traffic to a minimum. Also, it would reduce the clutter on the thread wanting things changed (there'll be enough of that once it's at vote).

So... you should have a few days to finally relax.

Actually I started the Aslan Faction article I was planning. This is just a first cut at it ...

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aslan_Faction

I found another player that already had documented an II terrorist RP, so I've gone to the liberty of creating a new NSWiki category called "Terrorism". Though it isn't finished, the Aslan Faction actually got some of what it wanted ... but it never became its own country. But I'm gonna scale things down a bit and move the historical timeline around, adding more "Sons of Liberty" styled terrorism in there before the slash and burn I've currently got. This will also give me a reasonable excuse to have bigger explosives to take out the dams.