Suggested Addition to the Bill of Rights

unibot

unibot

TNPer
A suggested addition to the Bill of Rights.

12. Every Nation shall be free from discrimination based on political orientation, military orientation (e.g., defenderism, raiderism), population, national age, length of residency, membership in the World Assembly, multiple-citizenship or any other arbitrary categorization.
Click to expand...
 
I'm enthusiastically supportive of the basic idea behind this amendment, with a few specific caveats:

1) I would make this the twelfth clause and leave the current eleventh as the eleventh. Legislative renumbering is generally a bad idea.

2) On age - is this meant to be national age or the actual person's age? Because I could see the latter getting messy with certain RL laws. We might want to clarify that.

3) Regarding "any other arbitrary categorization," I'm a little concerned about that. I don't want to see legitimate threats to regional security protected by the Bill of Rights because the Court has ruled in their favor based on this fairly ambiguous clause.

Aside from those minor issues, I very much support this.

EDIT: Regarding multiple citizenship, wouldn't there need to be an exception for citizenship in a region with which TNP is at war?
 
1) I would make this the twelfth clause and leave the current eleventh as the eleventh. Legislative renumbering is generally a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I put it as eleventh because the last clause is meant to be a catch-all clause.

2) On age - is this meant to be national age or the actual person's age? Because I could see the latter getting messy with certain RL laws. We might want to clarify that.
Click to expand...

National age or Length of Residency.

3) Regarding "any other arbitrary categorization," I'm a little concerned about that. I don't want to see legitimate threats to regional security protected by the Bill of Rights because the Court has ruled in their favor based on this fairly ambiguous clause.
Click to expand...

In times of emergency, the last clause allows a limitation to the Bill of Rights.
 
Cormac Stark:
EDIT: Regarding multiple citizenship, wouldn't there need to be an exception for citizenship in a region with which TNP is at war?
Click to expand...
But that's not discrimination on the basis you have multiple citizenship, but on the basis of specifically what region you have a citizenship with? No?
 
Length of residency... couldn't that mean people could vote in elections of which they have become a citizen. Sounds like a bad idea to me - leaves opportunity for people to come in and get citizenship just to vote.

I also won't support it with the WA membership clause. The delegate should be free to choose his or her method of how to vote on World Assembly resolutions. Again, some of us don't consider taking only WA members into account in the referendums on resolutions as discrimination. Regardless, Delegate can choose the method in which they vote, if they exclude non-WA members from voting on the resolutions, that is their prerogative.
 
This is redundant as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned. From Clause 9:
No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

We don't need to add a provision prohibiting discrimination or arbitrary classification when we already have such a provision.
Secondly, the proposal is unnecessarily verbose for the Bill of Rights.

Now, maybe a Legal Code provision implementing the above quoted language, but we don't need this in the Bill of Rights.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I also won't support it with the WA membership clause. The delegate should be free to choose his or her method of how to vote on World Assembly resolutions. Again, some of us don't consider taking only WA members into account in the referendums on resolutions as discrimination. Regardless, Delegate can choose the method in which they vote, if they exclude non-WA members from voting on the resolutions, that is their prerogative.
Click to expand...
He or she can choose what he wants .. so long as it is fair.

If he or she wants to run a WA "dictatorship" -- that is -better- then treating some nations differently on the basis of arbitrary distinction. One is his just prerogative, the other is going too far.

We do not give the delegate full prerogative on anything else. Silencing us is not his prerogative, ejecting and banning us arbitrarily is not his prerogative, ignoring the right to equality should not be his prerogative either! That's the liberty and equality we fought for and inspires many of our own citizens and other governments across NationStates.

Length of residency... couldn't that mean people could vote in elections of which they have become a citizen.
Click to expand...

You would be prohibiting them not on the basis of them having a certain length of residency, but because the vote already started when they got citizenship. One appears in a law like this:

You cannot vote in an election if the election is already in progress when you become a citizen.

Another law looks like this:

You cannot vote in an election if you became a citizen X days ago.

There's a difference between the two and the latter would be illegal.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
This is redundant as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned. From Clause 9:
No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

We don't need to add a provision prohibiting discrimination or arbitrary classification when we already have such a provision.
Secondly, the proposal is unnecessarily verbose for the Bill of Rights.

Now, maybe a Legal Code provision implementing the above quoted language, but we don't need this in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
No Gross, that is an incorrect interpretation, they are given the fair and equal provision of the rights in the existing Constitution, but not given the right to fair and equal treatment overall. There is a specific difference between the two.

This is not a political point, this is the truth. It's why the court didn't rule in our favor.

EDIT: I have referred this question to the court too, just for you. http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/6972796/1/

This proposed clause is also not verbose.
 
This clause should include also protection from discrimination against personal beliefs, particularly when it comes to appointments.
 
How could you protect against discrimination about personal beliefs? And what does that mean exactly?

In regards to the WA issue. I prefer the current way of doing things - that WA shall not be a requirement for participation in the government authority of the region. This does not include the Delegate's votes on the World Assembly. We've reached a reasonable compromise that has enfranchised all citizens again. I just hope people realise this is your attempt to get this changed again.
 
"In times of emergency, the last clause allows a limitation to the Bill of Rights. "

Oh, oh! We have been down this route before.

Who decides the national emergency? What level of national emergency? When someone, whoever that might be, decides we are in a national emergency, who decides what limitations are put on the bill of rights? Which rights would be limited? what guarantees would there be that the rights would be restored when the "emergency" is over? Come to think of it, who would decide when the emergency is ended?

Danger, Will Robinson. Danger.
 
mcmasterdonia:
We've reached a reasonable compromise that has enfranchised all citizens again. I just hope people realise this is your attempt to get this changed again.
Click to expand...
We're only enfranchised again because Daddy Elu has chosen to enfranchise us. >_>

Of course this is my attempt to seek the right to equality. My only "agenda" is to amend a Bill of Rights that does not protect against inequality.
 
mcmasterdonia:
In regards to the WA issue. I prefer the current way of doing things - that WA shall not be a requirement for participation in the government authority of the region. This does not include the Delegate's votes on the World Assembly. We've reached a reasonable compromise that has enfranchised all citizens again. I just hope people realise this is your attempt to get this changed again.
Click to expand...
Some of us have reached a compromise, and this amendment as far as I can tell wouldn't undo that compromise. The problem is what happens when a new Delegate is elected and decides he (or she) would prefer to end this compromise and revert to requiring a WA in the region or NPA service. This amendment would place that possibility out of bounds, which is why I am in favor of it while continuing to be in favor of the disclosure compromise that was reached.
 
Cormac Stark:
mcmasterdonia:
In regards to the WA issue. I prefer the current way of doing things - that WA shall not be a requirement for participation in the government authority of the region. This does not include the Delegate's votes on the World Assembly. We've reached a reasonable compromise that has enfranchised all citizens again. I just hope people realise this is your attempt to get this changed again.
Click to expand...
Some of us have reached a compromise, and this amendment as far as I can tell wouldn't undo that compromise. The problem is what happens when a new Delegate is elected and decides he (or she) would prefer to end this compromise and revert to requiring a WA in the region or NPA service. This amendment would place that possibility out of bounds, which is why I am in favor of it while continuing to be in favor of the disclosure compromise that was reached.
Click to expand...
I believe that there are many people who supported the former plan, myself and the delegate included. The compromise option, was exactly that, an attempt to bring both parties together and come up with a reasonable solution. I will not support this amendment, as I believe should the WA voting policy be changed in the future, that is the Delegates decisions as it is not recognized as a governmental authority in the region.

Missquoting me on IRC Unibot, in a deliberate attempt to mislead and cause argument is not going to help your cause.

I reiterate that I do not think that it is discriminatory to only allow WA nations to vote on WA resolutions, as they no doubt are located in other regions. I am against this proposal, it's also worth noting that at the time of the former proposal, we believed that it had majority support to pass the regional assembly, but decided to change it in the interests of keeping people happy.

The Regional Assembly and the public provide enough accountability to the Delegate, should this policy be changed again, if there is not the public support it will be very difficult to implement it. I think this is enough, without it needing to go into the bill of rights.

If legislation cannot be passed to change the policy back to how it was before - which is easier to do - will it pass as a bill of rights amendment?
 
mcmasterdonia:
I believe that there are many people who supported the former plan, myself and the delegate included. The compromise option, was exactly that, an attempt to bring both parties together and come up with a reasonable solution. I will not support this amendment, as I believe should the WA voting policy be changed in the future, that is the Delegates decisions as it is not recognized as a governmental authority in the region.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's productive for the region to have the question of the WA voting policy being brought up during each Delegate election and potentially being changed every time a new Delegate is elected. There are more pressing, bread and butter issues that need addressed in this region that will be ignored as long as we continue focusing on hot button issues like the WA voting policy. The Regional Assembly needs to put this matter to rest so we can move on to more important issues.

mcmasterdonia:
I reiterate that I do not think that it is discriminatory to only allow WA nations to vote on WA resolutions, as they no doubt are located in other regions.
Click to expand...
It is discriminatory. It excludes those whose WA nations are not in TNP or who are not serving in the NPA from WA voting, using an ultra-regionalist argument that basically ignores any other contribution they might be making to the region. Regional participation is a complex issue that can't be boiled down to "WA not in the region? Must not be a real North Pacifican, then."

As I've pointed out again and again, those involved in R/D gameplay will not necessarily have their WA nations located in other regions where they can vote or vote in other regions.

mcmasterdonia:
I am against this proposal, it's also worth noting that at the time of the former proposal, we believed that it had majority support to pass the regional assembly, but decided to change it in the interests of keeping people happy.
Click to expand...
I believe that the ultra-regionalist WA voting policy had the votes to pass the Regional Assembly as well, which was why I sought compromise, but I don't think those in favor of that policy sought compromise for the altruistic purpose of "keeping people happy." That's not how politics work. Rather, leaving that policy in place and the continued controversy over it would have been a stain on Eluvatar's legacy as Delegate. It would have also politically united those who were opposed to that policy, which would have made things very interesting and unpredictable in the next Council of Five election and in the next Delegate election.

mcmasterdonia:
The Regional Assembly and the public provide enough accountability to the Delegate, should this policy be changed again, if there is not the public support it will be very difficult to implement it. I think this is enough, without it needing to go into the bill of rights.
Click to expand...
I don't, and here's why: Even if in the future a majority of the Regional Assembly is opposed to the ultra-regionalist WA voting policy, that doesn't mean a majority of the Regional Assembly would be in favor of recall over that policy. Given that Flemingovia has decided to enshrine broad authority for the Delegate to make decisions in regard to WA voting into law, it is necessary for the Bill of Rights to provide equality protections as checks against the expanding power of the Delegacy.

mcmasterdonia:
If legislation cannot be passed to change the policy back to how it was before - which is easier to do - will it pass as a bill of rights amendment?
Click to expand...
There actually has been no attempt to pass such legislation, so it's premature to argue that it can't be passed.
 
I don't think it's productive for the region to have the question of the WA voting policy being brought up during each Delegate election and potentially being changed every time a new Delegate is elected.
Click to expand...

Legislate. There is no need to change the bill of rights.

Again. I don't agree with your argument over it being discriminatory. It would be different if we said to be a member of the RA you require a WA nation in the region - that I agree would be discriminatory. For me, WA Nations voting on WA proposals makes sense to me.

I believe that the ultra-regionalist WA voting policy had the votes to pass the Regional Assembly as well, which was why I sought compromise, but I don't think those in favor of that policy sought compromise for the altruistic purpose of "keeping people happy." That's not how politics work. Rather, leaving that policy in place and the continued controversy over it would have been a stain on Eluvatar's legacy as Delegate. It would have also politically united those who were opposed to that policy, which would have made things very interesting and unpredictable in the next Council of Five election and in the next Delegate election.
Click to expand...

I don't consider this to be true at all. Eluvatar is not up for reelection, it could be argued he has nothing to lose. I don't think this would have affected the Council of Five election much - as going to the region and saying "you should be able to vote on WA resolutions when you don't have a WA" wouldn't have gotten much momentum as a policy. Delegate elections- I agree this will be an issue.

Frankly I agreed to the compromise for one reason and that was to get rid of this drama that I thought was unproductive to the region - and was causing good people to consider leaving, and causing rifts in peoples friendships with one another. That's why I agreed to the change, it wasn't some reason to save Eluvatar's delegacy or his legacy, he can fight for that himself. To say eluvatar is only interested in protecting his legacy, seems harsh to me.

Some of your arguments seem conflicting to me:

There actually has been no attempt to pass such legislation, so it's premature to argue that it can't be passed.
Click to expand...
I believe that the ultra-regionalist WA voting policy had the votes to pass the Regional Assembly as well, which was why I sought compromise,
Click to expand...

So you think that the 'regionalist' policy would have passed the RA? Yet we are choosing to go down a path of amending the bill of rights which will require a 3/4 majority. The bill of rights has stood the test of time, I can't see this passing. If we want to change how the Delegate votes and require that all nations regardless of WA status, regardless of where the WA nation is located, I would suggest a legislative route. It would also be a good way to test the waters to see how much support this policy has.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Legislate. There is no need to change the bill of rights.

Again. I don't agree with your argument over it being discriminatory. It would be different if we said to be a member of the RA you require a WA nation in the region - that I agree would be discriminatory. For me, WA Nations voting on WA proposals makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
There is a need to change the Bill of Rights if one believes that TNP citizens have a right to equal treatment. If it's a right, it belongs in the Bill of Rights. Aside from that, legislating this as merely part of the Legal Code would conflict with Flemingovia's legislation that is currently at vote -- whereas if it's included in the Bill of Rights it will supersede that legislation.

Your argument on discrimination doesn't make sense because we're not just talking about requiring a WA nation in the region. We're talking about requiring a WA nation in the region or service in the NPA. Why should the NPA be exempt? They don't have a WA in the region because they're busy raiding or defending other regions, just like any other raider or defender. The only difference is that they're doing it for The North Pacific -- which is regionalist discrimination. Especially given that most of the NPA's missions are arbitrary and have nothing to do with defense of The North Pacific, prosecution of war on behalf of The North Pacific or collaboration with allies.

mcmasterdonia:
I don't consider this to be true at all. Eluvatar is not up for reelection, it could be argued he has nothing to lose. I don't think this would have affected the Council of Five election much - as going to the region and saying "you should be able to vote on WA resolutions when you don't have a WA" wouldn't have gotten much momentum as a policy. Delegate elections- I agree this will be an issue.

Frankly I agreed to the compromise for one reason and that was to get rid of this drama that I thought was unproductive to the region - and was causing good people to consider leaving, and causing rifts in peoples friendships with one another. That's why I agreed to the change, it wasn't some reason to save Eluvatar's delegacy or his legacy, he can fight for that himself. To say eluvatar is only interested in protecting his legacy, seems harsh to me.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Eluvatar is only interested in protecting his legacy, though I do think he'd rather be remembered for something other than being the Delegate who perpetuated regionalist discrimination in WA voting. At least I hope so.

Your reason for agreeing to the compromise was similar to my reason for agreeing to the compromise, though I'll acknowledge that I also saw the political reality that the discriminatory policy is more popular at the moment than the equality policy. The problem is that the drama didn't go away. Flemingovia resuscitated it by attempting to enshrine the Delegate's absolute power over WA voting policy into law, whereas before it was defined only by the absence of a law. Flemingovia's proposed legislation would open the door for entrenched, arbitrary regionalism mandated by the Delegate, and this legislation is necessary as a check on expanded Delegate power.

In other words, we were not the first to toss aside the compromise. Almost as soon as it was agreed to it was thrown in the trash by regionalists.

mcmasterdonia:
Some of your arguments seem conflicting to me:

There actually has been no attempt to pass such legislation, so it's premature to argue that it can't be passed.
Click to expand...
I believe that the ultra-regionalist WA voting policy had the votes to pass the Regional Assembly as well, which was why I sought compromise,
Click to expand...

So you think that the 'regionalist' policy would have passed the RA? Yet we are choosing to go down a path of amending the bill of rights which will require a 3/4 majority. The bill of rights has stood the test of time, I can't see this passing. If we want to change how the Delegate votes and require that all nations regardless of WA status, regardless of where the WA nation is located, I would suggest a legislative route. It would also be a good way to test the waters to see how much support this policy has.
Click to expand...
There's nothing conflicting there. I do think the regionalist, discriminatory policy is more popular; but I also don't think it's fair to say that a more equitable policy would fail as normal legislation when no one has yet tried to pass it as normal legislation.

As I mentioned, the problem with trying to pass this as normal legislation is Flemingovia's current proposal. In fact Flemingovia's current proposal is the entire problem. A compromise had been reached that should have laid this controversy to rest, at least for a while, but for some reason that is completely unclear to me he felt the need to reignite it in order to give the Delegate an explicit power that he already implicitly had.
 
Is it not the case that currently the Delegate can vote on WA resolutions however he would like, the council of five policy bounds this Delegate as he chooses to do so. It is not a legal requirement. If that is the case, is Flemingovia's legislation changing anything? If not just including the status-quo into law.

The proposal made by flemingovia does not change the current policy at all. The policy is subject to change with a new Delegate regardless. If we want to stop that from happening, we could legislate the current way of doing things - or alternative proposals.

The compromise was not tossed to the side, Flemingovia's legislation does not change anything. It does not remove the compromise, and the council of five will not be suddenly changing its WA voting policy based on legislation that gives the Delegate a power, he already had.
 
cormac Stark:
I don't think it's productive for the region to have the question of the WA voting policy being brought up during each Delegate election and potentially being changed every time a new Delegate is elected. There are more pressing, bread and butter issues that need addressed in this region that will be ignored as long as we continue focusing on hot button issues like the WA voting policy. The Regional Assembly needs to put this matter to rest so we can move on to more important issues.
Click to expand...

Of course it is productive. It is the cut and thrust of what makes a region vibrant and colourful and politics in TNP into a real choice between ideologies rather than a succession of identical suits full of bugger all.

The Internationalst Brigade want to tie things up (in their own favour, naturally. God forbid otherwise) so that the RA cannot choose a candidate who, say, campaigns on a ticket of "i am goign to vote on WA issues how I damn well please. Suck it up, whiny shits." Now I for one think that would make for a much more exciting campaign and debate. and I trust the RA to do the right thing in such a situation.

But even if we do elect such a candidate - it would mean a change of policy in one game region for a few months. Nobody would die. A few pimply adolescents would not be able to vote on issues in an online game in a particular area of the game for a few weeks. Not the end of the world.

I think what i am trying to say is .... sheesh, get a life.
 
mcmasterdonia:
The proposal made by flemingovia does not change the current policy at all.
Click to expand...
It blocks any legislation that tries to limit how the delegate can vote, which is why a Bill of Rights amendment is needed to effectively challenge it -- and it's the right thing to do. Our Bill of Rights should have a Right to Equality clause ingrained in it.
 
The court has resoundingly agreed with my position:

The answer would be simply no. This provision requires "equal and fair treatment" to all nations of the North Pacific in relation to the provisions as laid out in the Constitution. This does not include every government affair.
Click to expand...

The Charter does not protect the general right of nations to be treated equally by their government, it only requires them to equally distribute the provisions of the Constitution to nations in the North Pacific -- most of government policy is thus allowed to be as unequal and discriminative as the government desires. Once again, I reiterate: we should protect the equality of members under law.
 
Here is a suggested alternative clause:

12. Every Nation shall be equal before and under the law as well as receive equal benefit and equal protection of the law, without discrimination on the basis of these enumerated grounds: political orientation, military orientation (e.g., defenderism, raiderism), population, national age, length of residency, membership in the World Assembly, multiple-citizenship or any grounds analogous to the aforementioned. Policy that has an ameliorative purpose of the law on more disadvantaged groups may operate notwithstanding this clause, but only to the extent necessary to achieve the desired effect. For the purposes of this clause, "the law" shall include all informal or formal laws, regulations, policies and directives of The North Pacific Government.
Click to expand...
 
Please advise how many informal or formal laws, regulations, policies and directives of The North Pacific Government currently are in violation of this suggested right?
 
Besides the issue of the Delegate's WA vote, what other concerns would this proposal cover? Humbly and honestly, I am struggling to see the necessity.
 
I will oppose this as amendment to the Bill of Rights. Pure and simply unneeded and is the wrong way to address any issues this supposedly seeks to address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top