I'm going to post Flemingovia's explanation for the original proposal since this was the formulation that was originally brought forward in the amendment to the constitutional oath requirement, where that same phrasology appears. (And noting that at this writing, that amendment has passed the RA with a two-thirds majority vote.)
Flemingovia:
It may help other RA members to know the reasons why I proposed the change to our society which Mr Sniffles outlined in his first post (whether it is implimented in a const change or a law I will leave to the experts to determine.)
Almost from the moment of the adoption of the current constitution, a loophole has been evident that has been constantly exploited by those who wish us ill.
That loophole has two parts:
First, it is absurdly easy to become an RA member. Post the oath and you are in - there is no questioning of it, no examination of the applicant, no decision to be made. People treat becoming a RA member as if it is a right for anybody. And perhaps it is.
Now this would not be too much of a problem if the RA oath was watertight. But, as I shall show below it is not.
Second, the constitution was written consistently refering to nations. Nations are covered by the constitution, not the players.
Consider for a moment the absurdity of this. Nations are inanimate. It is players who make decisions. It is as if our RL laws concerning murder covered murder weapons, and we put them on trial, not the murderers. asking a nation to take an oath is as stupid as asking a sword or a dagger to promise not to stab anyone. What matters is how they are weilded.
This has been exploited almost from the moment the constitution was written, with players who are actively working to take over or undermine this region maintaining a nation within the RA of the region, even, theoretically, able to become ministers or delegate.
All the player need to do is to be careful not to attack the region in any way with the nation specifically put into the RA. They can do what they like with their other puppets.
Now I was involved in drawing up this constitution, and I KNOW this was not the intent of the drafters. But it is the situation we are in, and it leads to several problems.
1. It means, in a war situation, that enemy powers cannot easily be forum banned, as they have RA "rights".
2. It means we have a potentially large security problem. Not least because discussions and decisions by the RA are known to those attacking us. Even should we decide at any point to have a RA discussion behind closed doors, it woud be immediately ineffective.
3. It means that the RA oath is meaningless, since it binds the nation not the player. A player can sign the oath with a puppet quite easily, then attack the region with other nations and forum accounts.
4. It means we are, frankly, the cause of much bewilderment and laughter in other regions. I do not know of any other region who would embrace so readily players who are actively attacking the region.
5. It means that our justice system is ineffective. We can pass whatever laws we like, but if a player is careful, they are untouchable.
Please note, what I have said above is informed by, but does not specifically refer to aspects of our conflict with the Lexicon, nor trials which have or are being carried out in the region. I just think there is an unforseen hole in our constitution that we ought to patch.
Trying to create a strict definition of "allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific," raises the same sort of issues that trying to impose any form of rigid endo caps does on UN nation endorsements. By adopting a strict definition, it creates a "safe harbor" for those who intend ill against us. Likewise, imposing a strict definition of this language also creates a "safe harbor" for activities that seek to undermine the region. It was these sorts of activities that Flemingovia was referring to in his statement that I just quoted above.
In view of the Lexicon's recent activities, which include a plot within the region to subvert the most recent elections within the region by subversion and inflitration, and it would seem, an subsequent, more recent attempt to unduly influence and interfere with the Regional Assembly's vote on the oath amendment, there is no question in my mind that these are the sort of activities that this proposed law should address. By its nature, we simply won't be able to have a precise definition, whether informal or otherwise; we're just going to have to let the facts in future situations guide us as to when this law should be applied and when it shouldn't.
I don't think that it is possible to draw a rigid line and say that fits and that doesn't fit. It is going to have to be fact-based dependent on the specific circumstances present. As with the phrasology used in that constitutional amendment; it is not directed towards invaider activity when the Tne North Pacific is not affected by that activity, and when the NPA is not involved in a defensive action concerning that activity.
If, however, a player intends to subvert our system in support of an external plot against The North Pacific either through a hostile takeover of the Delegacy or of the government or by attacking this forum from within, (or renders support for those that do so), then that should be considered to be a criminal offense.
We should keep in mind that while we are not at war with the Lexicon, we are not at peace with them either. And as long as they continue with these sorts of active interference with TNP's internal affairs, then we need to have mechanisms in place to address such threats within our constitutional system. The change in the oath does not cover all the circumstances that we need to be concerned about; nor can I say for certain that this or any other law would cover all conceivable circumstances, but I feel comfortable that by allowing the judicial process to apply this to a set of facts proven to it, the law and the amendment to the oath will likely cover a great percentage of such circumstances.
@ Freedom and Pride: There are already mechanisms through the Cabinet and the Security Council; and in theory the Court already could entertain a ex parte petition from the government for a remedy such as suspension by way of a filind of a civil proceeding. Bill section 3 just makes the judicial option more explicit than it would otherwise be.
