Bring sanity back to our flag laws

unibot

unibot

TNPer
Our justices have decided that the fundamental Right to Self-Determination over what flags we can fly is limited on the basis of a law that says you cannot use the Coat of Arms.

Section 7.1: Arms, Flag, and Seal

4. The arms of the North Pacific may not be used except to represent the North Pacific or an official regional entity.
Click to expand...

I call for the section prohibiting the use of the Arms to be removed. We already have a section on Fraud.

Likewise, our Justices have now threatened that the entire Clause 1 is not worth the paper it is written on. We need to now strengthen the integrity of the clause ...

The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific

1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the inalienable right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, flag choice, issue selection and WA membership.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, our government should not be getting into the business of telling people what flags they can and can't fly. It's a slippery slope. It is absolutely shocking to me that the Justices believed there could be any compromise here. It's a flag. It belongs to the nation and it isn't the place of a regional government to dictate to a nation what flag they can fly. We say we're the most liberal feeder in NationStates, yet we don't allow even the most basic rights of sovereignty to our citizens.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I don't see any problem with the current law and the "slippery slope" argument is fear-mongering at its best..
Click to expand...
Yeah, because citizens not having fundamental control over what flag they fly in The North Pacific isn't something concerning at all. Why do we even bother having a Bill of Rights?
 
So we have an Arms, and we have a flag, which contains the arms as its central element...and you're complaining that you can't fly the Arms as though it were a flag, and that the government therefore has absolutely no right to reserve for its exclusive use, a symbol of the region to be used to lend legitimacy to official documents? Got it.

Thoroughly against.
 
Gaspo:
So we have an Arms, and we have a flag, which contains the arms as its central element...and you're complaining that you can't fly the Arms as though it were a flag, and that the government therefore has absolutely no right to reserve for its exclusive use, a symbol of the region to be used to lend legitimacy to official documents? Got it.

Thoroughly against.
Click to expand...
Do any government officials fly the Coat of Arms? How is the Coat of Arms even an official flag, if it isn't used in the form of the Official flag? It's a white flag that uses the Coat of Arms.

Any well-intended newbie could make a flag using his region's coat of arms. Maybe he thought he was being patriotic?

redflag.png


NO THAT IS UNREASONABLE: YOU FLY THE COAT OF ARMS ON ANYTHING (EVEN SOMETHING AS BASIC AND FUNDAMENTALLY BELONGING TO YOU AS YOUR REGION'S FLAG), YOU MUST BE A CONSPIRATOR TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT!

greenflag.png


PUT THESE CRIMINALS IN JAIL!!! Fuck, we couldn't even sentence JAL! But we feel safe in our beds knowing no twelve year is going to put our Coat of Arms over a green background. Good lord. Why don't we ban flags that have blue in them next? We'll call it the "Patriot's Act". Get it? If you're a patriot, we'll ban you.
 
unibot:
But we feel safe in our beds knowing no twelve year is going to put our Coat of Arms over a green background.
Click to expand...
Correct. People under the age of thirteen don't usually play NationStates/Can't access the forums. :P
 
So to be clear.

Nations are allowed to fly the regional flag, despite the fact that it contains the coat of arms, and by default are then flying the coat of arms as well. However, they are not permitted to put the coat of arms on their own flag, or even fly it on it's own. This does not make complete sense to me.

I am not however disagreeing with the Court on their interpretation of the bill of rights. I think that should remain unchanged.

A simple change to the law though would be fine. A regional example is The South Pacific where prominent/patriotic members fly the triangle/coatofarms in the corner of their flag. I personally would not object to nations doing this.
 
That is what I took this to mean:

if any nation is truly enamored with the Arms, and simply must have the Arms as a part of its flag, The Court directs that nation to Legal Code Chapter 7.1.5, which establishes the official Flag of The North Pacific, a flag whose use is not restricted in the same way as the Arms.
Click to expand...

Specifically that the only way the use of the coat of arms is legal (by a non-government representative) is via the use of the regional flag. This being the context by which, use of the coat of arms would be legal.
 
Ah. That may represent a typo on my part - what was intended was "and simply must have the Arms as its flag". Easily corrected, though again I have to say that the free and loose use of the Arms as a common cultural element significantly devalues it as an official government symbol. If the region is ok with its Coat of Arms being unreliable as an indicator of official-ness of things, so be it.
 
Of course. What I don't think should be allowable is the use of the Arms on their own - they effectively serve as a Seal for The North Pacific, a way in which official documents can be official-ized. If we just let anyone they want run around with it as a flag, it loses that ability to convey a sense of officiousness, with nothing whatsoever gained for the region as a whole.
 
I guess I'm torn on this one; on one hand, I see Unibot's point: why can't a nation fly whatever flag it wants to? But I also see the court's point: if the government can't have any official symbols to represent only it, what good are they as official symbols?

So for now, I'd abstain.
 
I would note that what I say here is not the opinion of The Court, but mine as a citizen. The Court does not involve itself in political matters, instead merely ruling on the law as written.
 
I'm not sure I completely understand. The two example flags Unibot made up, are they legal? Is anything else besides the Arms itself not legal?
 
But how can you use the Coat of Arms "alone" on a flag?

Any flag must require at the very least the Coat of Arms on a white flag. Thereby making it different than the original (which has no background at all since it's a PNG file).
 
LET'S PLAY A GAMESHOW.. IT'S CALLLED "GUESS WHAT FLAG IS ILLEGAL"!!!

The rules are simply, out of these five flags, one of them is illegal. If you wear one of the four legal ones, your prize is "not being accused of fraud, conspiracy and murder".

Let's play then?

A.
greenflag3.png


B.
greenflag1.png


C.
greenflag.png


D.
greenflag4.png


E.
greenflag2.png


And remember kids, only one of these flags represents The North Pacific officially, so if you're one of those regionalists justly applauding the tough laws against the use of the Coat of Arms for our security, you should be comforted to know that people trying to coup the government can still use the same or similar flag as our government officials' usually wear. Only an unusual and not often used configuration of the Coat of the Arms over a purely white background is worth a count of conspiracy and fraud. if that doesn't make sense, I have no fucking clue what would!

FLAWED LAW IS FLAWED.
 
You have, out of nowhere, brought regional security into this discussion. If regional security is your true interest, we should completely outlaw use of the Arms in any context by any non-government individual, specifically because that would preserve the Arms as a symbol indicative of regional authority. Except you want the opposite of that - absolutely no control or ability for the region to express itself through an official symbol. None whatsoever. So, not even a chance of indicating which nations do and do not represent the region. Progress!

Also, I thought this was about the big bad Court trampling on everyone's rights - which is it? Rights, or security? Please get your story straight.
 
Must, but, and, reasonable/unreasonable, unalienable this and that - whine pew yawn. I feel like I'm reading a debate hosted by the tea party.

The law is fine as it is. The region should have an exclusive arms for official documents, resolutions, and the like. There's no point to this change.

~B
 
Anyways, to throw my own personal bit of opinion in here. I think I pretty much agree with McMasterdonia, on the matter. I think there needs to be *some* limitation regarding how/where the Seal/Flag is used. I don't have anything against allowing free flag flying. I'm hesitant to be alright with just the seal in the flag, simply because I find that it could potentially be used by people like Frak to make their TG nations look more official with UnEndo Campaigns. This, of course, is definitely a matter of debate. I for one am glad that this matter came about, since it seems like we definitely have a law to figure out/fix here.
 
Gaspo:
You have, out of nowhere, brought regional security into this discussion. If regional security is your true interest, we should completely outlaw use of the Arms in any context by any non-government individual, specifically because that would preserve the Arms as a symbol indicative of regional authority. Except you want the opposite of that - absolutely no control or ability for the region to express itself through an official symbol. None whatsoever. So, not even a chance of indicating which nations do and do not represent the region. Progress!

Also, I thought this was about the big bad Court trampling on everyone's rights - which is it? Rights, or security? Please get your story straight.
Click to expand...
If you want to convey authority, how'll about you start with being the fucking authority in the region. If someone who isn't a government official is using the seal and you don't notice, then the response is either:

A. That's a threat to security.
B. Learn who your government officials and stop relying on a Coat of Arms like Ron Burgundy and a Teleprompter.

If it's a threat to security, then we have a reasonable reason to curtail a civil right to a limited effect. What I am pointing out is that even if you justify this law as a necessary evil, it isn't an effective law, it only bars people from using the Coat of Arms in a very specific way in a flag. You can easily get around the law then.

But you deny it is a threat to security. Then your answer is "B". We don't need this prohibition anymore than we need people to be barred from using our regional flag (which is oddly enough, legal). When a memo is posted by McMasterdonia, I don't a rat's ass that it begins with a "legally secured" symbol, I care that it's posted by Mcmasterdonia -- our delegate.

The region should have an exclusive arms for official documents, resolutions, and the like.
Click to expand...

If Unibot III becomes an official document I would lose sovereignty over my nation, which threatens my civil right under C.1 under the Bill of Rights. Of course, you weren't talking about my nation being used as a flag, because you have no intention of being an honest commentator who you know.. makes sense. You intend on associating me with, who was it again? Oh yeah, The Tea Party.
 
So then, Unibot, the correct answer (leaving aside the curses and insults which seem to define your rhetorical style) would be additional restrictions on the use of the Arms, in the name of security, because the general consensus here is that the region needs an official symbol, and as you have so adeptly indicated, the current law is far too open to abuse, which threatens our security. Therefore, I propose the following changes, instead of your proposal:

Section 7.1: Arms, Flag, and Seal

4. The Arms of the North Pacific may not be used in any form excepting the official Regional Flag, by any nation, without the express written consent of the currently sitting Delegate, in the interests of preserving the validity of these Arms as a reliable and official symbol of the Government of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Edit: I would note further that abuse of this law would easily be punished through TNP's broadly applicable Fraud law, duplicated below:
10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
 
Gaspo:
So then, Unibot, the correct answer (leaving aside the curses and insults which seem to define your rhetorical style) would be additional restrictions on the use of the Arms, in the name of security, because the general consensus here is that the region needs an official symbol, and as you have so adeptly indicated, the current law is far too open to abuse, which threatens our security. Therefore, I propose the following changes, instead of your proposal:

Section 7.1: Arms, Flag, and Seal

4. The Arms of the North Pacific may not be used in any form excepting the official Regional Flag, by any nation, without the express written consent of the currently sitting Delegate, in the interests of preserving the validity of these Arms as a reliable and official symbol of the Government of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Edit: I would note further that abuse of this law would easily be punished through TNP's broadly applicable Fraud law, duplicated below:
10. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with this solution as far as I can tell.

Also Unibot, that level of cursing isn't really appropriate. What's more, it detracts from whatever argument you're trying to make.
 
I don't have a problem with Gaspo's law so long as it can be applied retroactively so that a newbie using the Coat of Arms can be pardoned and stuff.
 
unibot:
I don't have a problem with Gaspo's law so long as it can be applied retroactively so that a newbie using the Coat of Arms can be pardoned and stuff.
Click to expand...
You mean so that you can escape your prosecution?
 
Grimalkin:
unibot:
I don't have a problem with Gaspo's law so long as it can be applied retroactively so that a newbie using the Coat of Arms can be pardoned and stuff.
Click to expand...
You mean so that you can escape your prosecution?
Click to expand...
Sure. Why not?

It's not like I'm a fan of being accused of wanting to coup The North Pacific.
 
Grimalkin:
unibot:
I don't have a problem with Gaspo's law so long as it can be applied retroactively so that a newbie using the Coat of Arms can be pardoned and stuff.
Click to expand...
You mean so that you can escape your prosecution?
Click to expand...
He has a point lol. That said, Unibot's use of the seal was more about civil disobedience than any major wrongdoing.
 
Don't you all get it? Laws are about restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens and do nothing to restrict the law-less.

The only thing that restricts the lawless is a good bashing with a big, heavy blunt object if they break the law!
 
unibot:
Grimalkin:
unibot:
I don't have a problem with Gaspo's law so long as it can be applied retroactively so that a newbie using the Coat of Arms can be pardoned and stuff.
Click to expand...
You mean so that you can escape your prosecution?
Click to expand...
Sure. Why not?

It's not like I'm a fan of being accused of wanting to coup The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Glad you agree.

Kiwi:
He has a point lol. That said, Unibot's use of the seal was more about civil disobedience than any major wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

He disobeyed the law with intent.
 
Unibot, as to your demand for retroactivity, I point you to the Bill of Rights.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. 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. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

A retroactive law is not permissible under the Bill of Rights, as currently written.
 
Kiwi:
Grimalkin:
unibot:
I don't have a problem with Gaspo's law so long as it can be applied retroactively so that a newbie using the Coat of Arms can be pardoned and stuff.
Click to expand...
You mean so that you can escape your prosecution?
Click to expand...
He has a point lol. That said, Unibot's use of the seal was more about civil disobedience than any major wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
civildisobedience01.png

The law really is fine the way it is. I don't see the need to change it.
 
Gaspo:
Unibot, as to your demand for retroactivity, I point you to the Bill of Rights.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. 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. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

A retroactive law is not permissible under the Bill of Rights, as currently written.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the law, but since this is not a retroactive law imposed as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings, then it is totally legal. Criminal proceedings would only apply to "criminal" proceedings, which would only apply to "crimes", aka the criminal code which Section 7.1 does not fall under. The criminal code is restricted to Chapter 1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
 
I suppose it's difficult for you to understand rule of law and that breaking the law has consequences.

I mean, it's obviously a very difficult concept.
 
unibot:
Gaspo:
Unibot, as to your demand for retroactivity, I point you to the Bill of Rights.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. 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. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

A retroactive law is not permissible under the Bill of Rights, as currently written.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the law, but since this is not a retroactive law imposed as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings, then it is totally legal. Criminal proceedings would only apply to "criminal" proceedings, which would only apply to "crimes", aka the criminal code which Section 7.1 does not fall under. The criminal code is restricted to Chapter 1 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
That is one interpretation, yes.
 
Grimalkin:
I suppose it's difficult for you to understand rule of law and that breaking the law has consequences.

I mean, it's obviously a very difficult concept.
Click to expand...
Sure. I would gladly accept the penalties for flying the region's Coat of Arms. But the penalties do not reflect the crime because it's unclear what I'm supposed to be charged of, for breaking a "Cultural Declaration" -- two counts of fraud and a count of conspiracy, apparently. Because clearly, I just want to coup the region and the best way to do that is to fly the region's Coat of Arms for a grand total of sixty seconds. :yes:
 
unibot:
Grimalkin:
I suppose it's difficult for you to understand rule of law and that breaking the law has consequences.

I mean, it's obviously a very difficult concept.
Click to expand...
Sure. I would gladly accept the penalties for flying the region's Coat of Arms. But the penalties do not reflect the crime because it's unclear what I'm supposed to be charged of, for breaking a "Cultural Declaration" -- two counts of fraud and a count of conspiracy, apparently. Because clearly, I just want to coup the region. :yes:
Click to expand...
I mean, really, it's not that hard to believe.
 
Grimalkin:
unibot:
Grimalkin:
I suppose it's difficult for you to understand rule of law and that breaking the law has consequences.

I mean, it's obviously a very difficult concept.
Click to expand...
Sure. I would gladly accept the penalties for flying the region's Coat of Arms. But the penalties do not reflect the crime because it's unclear what I'm supposed to be charged of, for breaking a "Cultural Declaration" -- two counts of fraud and a count of conspiracy, apparently. Because clearly, I just want to coup the region. :yes:
Click to expand...
I mean, really, it's not that hard to believe.
Click to expand...
You do realize that if someone wants to coup the region, flying the region's official flag for sixty seconds would at maximum be 0.0000000000000000001% effective.
But flying the official Coat of Arms on a white background, for a total of sixty seconds? That's not even 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% effective.

Why? Because... well,

1. You can't gain enough endorsements to take the delegacy in sixty seconds unless you're receiving foreign support.

2. You don't need to wear The North Pacific's Coat of Arms for sixty seconds if you're receiving foreign support to take the delegacy.

3. Taking a picture of your nation and handing it to the A.G to sodomize himself with is probably the most ineffective way of hiding your intentions to coup The North Pacific.

4. Why would I out myself to the A.G and not want to have some semblance of "surprise" if I were planning to coup?

5. I was a Non-WA Nation.

6. Not a single telegram was sent to anyone about endorsing anyone from me in those sixty seconds.

7. Since 2003-2004 (?), it's been impossible to endorse Non-WA Members. You can thank Free4All and [violet] for that one.

Thus, with 1 through 7, we can conclude there is no logical reason with the presented evidence to suggest I had any intention whatsoever of couping The North Pacific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top