SAFE HARBOUR

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
SAFE HARBOUR AMENDMENT

Art. 1
2) 2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, free association, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.

Art. 2 Sec. 1
In order to remain as legal members of The North Pacific, a Nation is expected to adhere to the following requirements:
1) Each member Nation will abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code enacted pursuant to Article IV of this Constitution.
2) Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.
3) Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and those within the raider/defender dynamic is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.

Art.5
Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.

The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a member Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a member Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region from within the North Pacific, in the name of the North Pacific, or in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a member Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against the territorial integrity or the government of The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action after such action has begun. Exception is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a member Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Regional Assembly Member.
Click to expand...

Repeal
NPA Code:
The North Pacific Army is established as a mobile army of UN nations pledged to the greater good of The North Pacific.

First and foremost, its duty will be to defend The North Pacific from any hostile or aggressive attack from any party.

In times when the first duty is not called upon, the North Pacific Army, in recognition of the dangers and damage invaders cause to the welfare of innocent peoples and regions, is granted the mandate to counter the forces of such invaders/griefers/crashers.

In this manner, the NPA is, at its core, a defender organization. In the best interests of the general populace, it shall enter and defend regions against aggressive attacks. It does not seek to be imperialistic or controlling. Instead, it aims to maintain or return control of the region to the region. It will not attempt to interfere in regional affairs besides trying to repulse or expel invader forces.

...

- I swear that I shall not engage in invader activity while being a member of the NPA
Click to expand...

Settles this whole thing if you ask me, for the love of god we're a feeder we can pick sides but this all or nothing grandstanding like one could ever win the war between raiders and defenders is senseless. We're above that, we're beyond that. Anything else just leaves scorched earth and a loss to the region for dynamic new players.

We need to make it clear that the NPA is there for defense of the region and other than that, they just play little side-games over regions with barely 50 nations on a good day. The North Pacific is open and free to both sides, but if war comes then we'll throw down. But the chances of raiders swallowing whole a feeder is so miniscule, it doesn't deserve our attention.

Also I cut half the sentence in Art 2, Sec 1 because it bugs me with its redundancy. We can't create laws in the Consititution or Legal Code without Art 4 so why mention the Constitution and Legal Code AND Art 4?

I'd rewrite all of Art 5 just because of the double negatives along but alas...
 
I like the changing of nation to member and a few other parts, the rest I still need to think about though.

Edit: Looking at Flem's post, I agree, you have not changed all the nation references, which would make it extremely confusing if the law was passed.
 
I would have preferred that this be presented in at least two seperate motions, since the elements dealing with duality and the elements dealing with the identity of this region are two seperate, though related, issues.

I would also prefer to see a definition of what you understand by "free association. "


I also do not understand why you changed "nation" to "member" in some clauses but not others - opening it to confusion.



And Mr Sniffles, I also found your belittling and condescending words concerning the activities of the NPA to be very insulting to those players who have given a lot of time in the service of this region. I hope you will have the decency to apologise.
 
I apologize if I seem condescending but I've served in the NPA, I've participated in NPA missions and as fun as it can be; it has nothing to do with regional security. That's my point, these games between defenders and raiders are insignificant in the face of regional security as a whole.

As to changing every mention of "member nation" to "member," I find no need to do this as member's have nations. In fact, during the election we required both UN and non-nations to be listed, I find that confusing. I think the term can be used interchangabley because the actions of a member and a member nation can judged separately in some cases.

ie - A spy's undercover nation vs their declared nation, unendorsement seeking ninjas (secret nation), and such.
 
The NPA acting as a defender force has never made much difference to our security, except when we have called them back to support our delegate or assist a handover.

But it makes a huge difference to our self-identity as a region. And that for me is the key issue facing us: Are we a region that stands for something, or are we a region that stands for everything.
 
flemingovia:
The NPA acting as a defender force has never made much difference to our security, except when we have called them back to support our delegate or assist a handover.

But it makes a huge difference to our self-identity as a region. And that for me is the key issue facing us: Are we a region that stands for something, or are we a region that stands for everything.
Click to expand...
We are a region that stands for free and open government, free and open to all in spite of those who oppose us. Organizations like the LWU do not oppose us, in fact we lost valuable players by sticking to this defender-only stance.

The NPA can continue being a defender all they like, what I'm proposing is to end prosecution and discrimination just because they disagree with most of us about how to play one aspect of the game.

EDIT
Sorry for forgetting but free association meaning, the right to freely associate with groups or organizations which are not directly at war with the North Pacific with all the exceptions of Oath violations, war mandates, and governmental responsibilities.
 
The NPA plays a role in the region, its government, and the Region's historic positions on issues that are relevant to the NPA's role.

The current text in Law 7 reflect that position, and I'm not of a mind to support any changes to it.

Nor am I of a mind to grant protections to those who seek to undermine this region's policies and positions by the change you propose in Clause 3 of Article V Section 5. Invaders currently have the right to be invaders, they just don't have the right to be invaders and go against the forces of The North Pacific. through the NPA or the actions that are authorized under TNP law (including treaties and agreements, or deployments of the NPA approved under TNP Law.)

Finally, the right of association is mentioned elsewhere in the Declaration of Rights. There no reason to amend any other clause of the Declaration of Rights to add something that is already mentioned.

Clearing up the language for duality concerns is one thing, granting favorism to invaders (who are inherently anti-democratic by their very nature) is an altogether different issue that should be totally separated from the rest. This proposal contains three totally different issues that should be separated.
 
Invaders currently have the right to be invaders, they just don't have the right to be invaders and go against the forces of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

How does opposing the NPA outside TNP affect regional stability? How would you expect one who the NPA suddenly decides to “take action against” to avoid breaking the law? Do you feel that it would be that individual member’s problem and not that of the government? Is there not already favoritism granted towards defenders in this region? How are defenders any more pro-democratic than invaders?
 
My proposal in no way grants extra rights to invaders nor does it say so at all. It simply states that defenders and invaders are stuck in the same dynamic which should be excluded from matters of REAL regional security.

Also I've yet to find a reference, can you please show it to me?
 
BW, under current TNP law, especially the Laws dealing with diplomatic and military agreements. the NPA may not be deployment under the authority of TNP except by some form of diplomatic agreement or treaty (especially under the provisions added by Law 12, or with the approval of the Security Council (in instances that a request is received from another region for NPA deployment). keep in mind that the Security Council is designed to be able to act quickly on a request, given its quorum requirement, it should not create a long delay in the case of an emergency request from another region.

Sniffles, a reference to what? Or did you mean this:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region...
Click to expand...

The right to assemble means assemble in groups, i.e., to associate. That's a pretty clear and easy one to find in my book.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
BW, under current TNP law, especially the Laws dealing with diplomatic and military agreements. the NPA may not be deployment under the authority of TNP except by some form of diplomatic agreement or treaty (especially under the provisions added by Law 12, or with the approval of the Security Council (in instances that a request is received from another region for NPA deployment). keep in mind that the Security Council is designed to be able to act quickly on a request, given its quorum requirement, it should not create a long delay in the case of an emergency request from another region.

Sniffles, a reference to what? Or did you mean this:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region...
Click to expand...

The right to assemble means assemble in groups, i.e., to associate. That's a pretty clear and easy one to find in my book.
Click to expand...
Associate and assemble are quite different, we've obviously seen the prejudices between defenders and raiders and they need not be needlessly harrassed because of them.
 
It's a pity I'll be leaving before I get a chance to vote against this.

Mr_Sniffles, I find your derisive comments concerning an organization that has been a part of The North Pacific's history and culture for the past four years to be most insulting and highly unbecoming of a representative of the region's government. The NPA has supported our region in times of strife in several occasions in years past, and more recently has been a vital part in maintaining our region's security. The NPA has helped countless regions restore their own sovereignty and culture by freeing them from the holds of a hostile invasion force and restoring a native to power. As has been previously mentioned, the NPA is as much a part of this region as you, me, as this entire forum. We represent the ideals The North Pacific has upheld over the past several years in the face of adversity. The North Pacific Army, in fact, is the longest standing organization in this region, all other governmental agencies and even the governments themselves included.

The changes you are proposing would put our region at extreme risk of invasion and attack, not only from invader forces, but from our allies as well. You would be turning the region's back on such strong allies as The West Pacific, who just recently helped us prevent an unauthorized and illegal Delegacy. By dissolving the NPA and opening the door to invaders, you would be cutting some of our only ties with other regions we have diplomatic relations with. I can almost guarantee that the number of embassies and consulates would drop by at least a quarter when their owners hear of the passing of this proposal.

I implore every member of the NPA, NPIA, Diplomatic Corps, and the Regional Assembly in general to vote strongly against this proposal. Despite whatever intentions it may have been written in, this bodes nothing but bad news for our region's security and culture. I am ashamed that a member of our government would even think of disbanding our region's oldest traditions, traditions which have never caused harm, but have done nothing but good for our region and those of others.
 
And in one simple ammendment you remove the game from the game and make it real life.

In other words, you can have no life outside of TNP if this passes.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Sniffles, a reference to what? Or did you mean this:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region...
Click to expand...

The right to assemble means assemble in groups, i.e., to associate. That's a pretty clear and easy one to find in my book.
Click to expand...
As I read it, the right to associate in this proposal refers to entities (possibly unsavory) both within and outside the region. The right to assemble quoted above refers to groups within the region.

That said, this proposal would fundamentally redefine the North Pacific in a way I do not support. I cannot back something that tosses away one of the defining pillars of our region.

If new invaders want to play here, let them feign innocence like everyone else does. :P
 
I've yet to find one shred of evidence that this will endanger the region. I've yet to see where I've in any way have proposed to end the tradition of defending in the NPA. I've also yet to see where I've proposed to disband the NPA. Showboating and grandstanding aside, these inflamed feelings of dismantling the soul of the region are quite simply not true.

Where do I propose to neglect the alliances with other regions? The MoD can run the NPA in any legal way they please, this has nothing to do with ending defending and raiding. It's about separating it with the policies of the region, so we can all be truly equal under the law. Your own personal prejudices over an idea, over burning bridges for the good of your cause and instead of the region has ultimately lead to the inactivity and general malaise the North Pacific has faced.
 
mr_sniffles:
Repeal
NPA Code:
The North Pacific Army is established as a mobile army of UN nations pledged to the greater good of The North Pacific.

First and foremost, its duty will be to defend The North Pacific from any hostile or aggressive attack from any party.

In times when the first duty is not called upon, the North Pacific Army, in recognition of the dangers and damage invaders cause to the welfare of innocent peoples and regions, is granted the mandate to counter the forces of such invaders/griefers/crashers.

In this manner, the NPA is, at its core, a defender organization. In the best interests of the general populace, it shall enter and defend regions against aggressive attacks. It does not seek to be imperialistic or controlling. Instead, it aims to maintain or return control of the region to the region. It will not attempt to interfere in regional affairs besides trying to repulse or expel invader forces.

...

- I swear that I shall not engage in invader activity while being a member of the NPA
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The NPA may not be immediately disbanded by this repeal, but...
  • It can no longer come to the aid of the region without seeking approval from the Security Council, just as the WPLF was forced to do recently.
  • It can no longer claim to act on behalf of The North Pacific, and can no longer by deployed by the government to assist an allied region that has been invaded.
  • It risks turning what is left of the NPA into an invader group, which will not only alienate possible future allies but could easily damage relations with existing ones, who have similar defender backgrounds.
  • It effectively ends a chapter in TNP's history, and would turn the region's back on that very long and noble chapter.
You are in no place to be accusing others of burning bridges. I too support the freedoms that allow people and nations to do as they wish, but when those freedoms are stretched so far that they endanger the freedoms of others, I have a hard time agreeing to that. Invaders violate those freedoms by attacking mostly defenseless regions and forcing them under a regime they did not ask for or want. They are, as Prime Minister Grosseschnauzer said, inherently undemocratic, just as undemocratic as several governments we have had to endure as a region. You would be inviting this dictatorial way of life into this region, a region whose Constitution clearly states that it holds democracy and freedom above all other goals.

Call me a grandstander, showboater, giant windbag all you like, but take note of the fact that you're going to have a very large group of people standing against you on this. I count nine so far. Are these odds you want to stand up against?
 
Is that a threat? 9 in the face of 70 isn't much, you act like I'm trying to overthrow the region. I'm just hoping for honest discussions and a good vote.

The repeal is not for all of the TNP Law# 7, nor does it end defending, it merely opens up the game for those invaders who might better benefit the region. What would the Lexicon War would've been like without Fedele's war posters? Don't act like some of BWII intel didn't benefit us either! To continue this treatment, to take advantage of such beloved players while keeping them under constant threat of prosecution is just plain wrong. It's not part of the North Pacific I believe in.

If anything it makes the MoD job more liberating, by truly having a say in how it should be run and where they will go. As to the NPA becoming an invader group, yes it is open should the voters elect an MoD with those sympathies. As it should be.

Also, there is a very thin line between defending and invading. I've been in missions where the region we were "saving" couldn't tell a defender from an invader, and if anything a strong argument could be made that if defenders didn't exist neither would invaders and vice versa.

Lastly, find me one feeder diplomat threatening to cut ties with us if we make defending and invading outside legal jurisdiction and I'll withdraw this bill and never bring this issue up ever again.
 
I'm not threatening anyone, and I don't see where you could have made that assumption. I'm just pointing out that based on the sentiments expressed in this discussion, your hopes of passing this proposal don't look very good at all. You know as well as I do that we've never had all 70 members of the RA participate in a vote - for that matter, 30 voters makes headline news.

Nobody here is suggesting that we hold any invaders who wish to participate here under permanent lock and key. If that were the case, Blue Wolf would never have been allowed to run for Prime Minister, something he has now done twice. Fedele never would have been permitted to be a Cabinet Minister, with an actual voice as to how this region was run. However, their intrusion into our region with the so-called "Wolves of the North" is another matter entirely.

It has been pointed out before that an invader group, with as few as 50 nations, could easily take over a feeder region in a matter of days. We allow endotarters to exist in this region, and will not act against them until they begin to approach the levels of our Vice Delegate. There is no strict level set for where the VD must be, only that they must be second in the region and close enough to be able to take over if need be. So, this could be as great as 75, or in the case of our last Vice Delegate, as few as 20. An endotarter could push up right next to the Vice Delegate, and the invader force I previously mentioned could endorse that tarter just before update and we would be under an invader regime. Wonderfully democratic, don't you think? By allowing this to happen, we open up a very wide hole in our regional security.

If anything it makes the MoD job more liberating, by truly having a say in how it should be run and where they will go.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this sounds as though the MoD doesn't currently have command of their army. Am I misunderstanding you here or something? The North Pacific Army is a military institution. The Minister of Defense is the Chief General in charge of all operations. If he wanted to order the NPA to jump through every single region in NationStates for training purposes, then he could have them jump through every region in NationStates. I really don't get what point you're trying to make here.

I've been in missions where the region we were "saving" couldn't tell a defender from an invader
Click to expand...

As have I. It happens. In fact, the NPA has a policy where if the region we're trying to liberate really doesn't want to be liberated for whatever reason, we'll pack our things and leave. There's no point in helping people who don't want our help when there are other people who are more than willing to receive it. That doesn't make our task any less important. And it's certainly not a reason to end defending in this region.

Lastly, find me one feeder diplomat threatening to cut ties with us if we make defending and invading outside legal jurisdiction and I'll withdraw this bill and never bring this issue up ever again.
Click to expand...

ADN/TNP Military Guidelines The ADN may be largely defunct now, but we'd have a hard time fulfilling that particular clause if the NPA couldn't go around defending.
The Lion Star Pact with the RLA would be violated and end our alliance with them. See clause 4.

No feeders just yet, but there's two diplomatic relations that would be severed were this to pass.
 
Not the question. You raised a question, and offered to withdraw the bill if Hers answered it.

Just because he answered, you cannot change the question.
 
flemingovia:
Not the question. You raised a question, and offered to withdraw the bill if Hers answered it.

Just because he answered, you cannot change the question.
Click to expand...
I never changed the question at all, show me the edit time. I reiterate my question for everyone to hear:

Lastly, find me one feeder diplomat threatening to cut ties with us if we make defending and invading outside legal jurisdiction and I'll withdraw this bill and never bring this issue up ever again.
Click to expand...
 
Well, there's quite the debate here.

I'm going to say that this proposal and the debate around it worries me, especially as some of the tone and tactics on both sides seem inaproppriate.
 
Lastly, find me one feeder diplomat threatening to cut ties with us if we make defending and invading outside legal jurisdiction and I'll withdraw this bill and never bring this issue up ever again.
Click to expand...
Apologies. Misread the question first time around.
 
I pretty much don't see any discrimination between invaders and defenders here. Tradition aside, it is more of standing for what we believe in and if we do allow this to happen, there would be no "official army". How bad could that be? We're talking about our credibility to other regions here. We would be a total turn-off to the eyes of defenders and as well as invaders. We have to take a stance. It's our dignity here that's at risk.

edit: grammar
 
With all due respect:

I stand with the [Hersfold] and strongly oppose [The Speakers'] proposal.

In the past, we have depended on organizations such as the NPA when this region has been invaded and then to shut out these nations that have helped us is a slap in their face.

We cannot run this government and this region without allies. With the help of similar organizations we were able to liberate this region from the oppressive control of Insane_Power and Cathyy. Have we all forgotten being dejected from this region because you have differing opinions? I certainly do and it would be a shame to see it happen again. We are opening ourselves up to invasions by beginning to dismantle the NPA.

La Duchess
 
Ermm... .From the context of your statement, Duchess, I think you mean you stand with Hersfold and oppose the Speaker.

Correct me if I am wrong.
 
Duchess, I believe Flemingovia is correct. Hersfold has been criticizing Mr. Sniffle's proposal, including the part that would strike an importnt part of the Law on the NPA and the Ministry of Defense.
 
Duchess, I believe Flemingovia is correct. Hersfold has been criticizing Mr. Sniffle's proposal
Click to expand...

My interpretation of Hersfold proposal is that it would begin to dismantle the NPA, is that not correct? I stand against a proposal that would weaken the NPA, which we have relied on for protection for quite some time now.
 
No, Hersfold is one of the most adamant NPA supporters.
Click to expand...

I read both proposals very early this morning.

I'll edit my initial post.
 
I am also against the repeal of the NPA code. The rest of it sits fine with me but I must question why the Speaker decided to include the two revisions together and not separately?

On that note, is it possible for the Speaker to divide the proposal in two?
 
If the Speaker would divide this into three parts, the part concerning the use of "member Nation" might be salvagable; as it stands, I'm leaning towards introducing a separate proposal on that topic, once I confer with others over the matter.
 
Ugh, we are in no way repealing the NPA nor the NPA Code!!!

We are only repealing the section which outlines defending as the sole purpose over the greater interests of the North Pacific.

As for separating the proposal, I am open to that for eliminating defending as the sole purpose of the NPA was to free BWII from prosecution while ending duality. However if BWII is willing to risk it then so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top