NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe the following proposal speaks for itself. I would ask delegates consider and approve it and lets get it up for a vote:

RECOGNIZING that as the World Assembly we carry great real and symbolic power over the peoples of the world who look to us and their governments for guidance.

ACKNOWLEDGING that such a symbolic and actual position of power carries with it the potential for abuse.

BELIEVING that affirmatively stating a self-imposed limitation on that power will serve to reassure the people of the world that the World Assembly exists to serve and protect, rather than rule and dominate

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED:

The World Assembly shall pass no resolution respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition their Government or the World Assembly for a redress of grievances.

This resolution will absolutely not be receiving the support of the government of the Emperor of Urgench.

despite its ludicrous brevity this resolution is pernicious and will harm the world assembly should any version of it ever come to vote and be passed.

The membership of this organisation is responsible for serving the interests of their citizens, a restriction of the powers of this organisation is therefore pointless. Strong oversight allready exists, and since the member nations themselves vote on all measures they already get to decide what levels of power to abrogate to the World Assembly.

We are not even sure how legal this resolution would be.

yours e.t.c. ,

Pure 'blocker' legislation isn't allowed. Also, there's no way you could properly categorize this. Sorry, not gonna fly.

Not to mention that the only clause that actually does anything is blatently ripped off from the US bill of rights.

It's scary the way even Americans don't recognize a rip off the First Amendment when they see it - seeing how they always try to hide behind it when they break forum rules.

It's scary the way even Americans don't recognize a rip off the First Amendment when they see it - seeing how they always try to hide behind it when they break forum rules.
Not sure what you are trying to say here, if anything, beyond a general comment.

However, I will note, I do know it is a "blatant rip off" of the 1st Amendment, It was intended as such. There was, however, no intent to break any forum or WA rules by proposing the matter nor am I "hiding" behind it. I"m also not clear why such a broad and general statement "won't fly" and why such "blocker" legislation is impermissible - I will be re-reading the WA proposal rules though to see if I can figure it out.

Without such legislation, however, I can see that the WA is open to passing resolutions such as:

"No member of the WA shall permit the publication of any material which in any fashion defames or criticizes the World Assembly or its policies."

While an extreme example maybe and one unlikely to pass were it proposed, it nevertheless illustrates the issue my proposal was aimed at. If the WA can pass a resolution that requires nations to recognize rights (such as the right to marriage), why shouldn't the WA itself be required to recognize rights?

Now, off to re-read the rules.

It is so difficult the words in English, but I think I understand what is meant. So I think it is not a real blocker. Not more a blocker than some resolution of rights to have nukes. :)
So re-read the rules or ... (I will not say, you will know).

It's scary the way even Americans don't recognize a rip off the First Amendment when they see it - seeing how they always try to hide behind it when they break forum rules.

OOC:Most likely they're aware of what it does, but unaware of the actual wording.

However, I will note, I do know it is a "blatant rip off" of the 1st Amendment, It was intended as such. There was, however, no intent to break any forum or WA rules by proposing the matter nor am I "hiding" behind it. I"m also not clear why such a broad and general statement "won't fly" and why such "blocker" legislation is impermissible - I will be re-reading the WA proposal rules though to see if I can figure it out.The trick to "blockers" is, they have to do something besides block. As yours is written now all it does is say "The WA can't do this."

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Without such legislation, however, I can see that the WA is open to passing resolutions such as:

"No member of the WA shall permit the publication of any material which in any fashion defames or criticizes the World Assembly or its policies."
And nations can pass laws banning criticism of their policies. So why not simply pass a free speech resolution? That way, both the World Assembly and national governments will be unable to ban criticism.