North Pacific Security Council Disclosure Act

I didn't care much about this whole debate, and voted for the previous bill by Praetor because I thought it was reasonable. I was even somewhat inclined to agree with Security Councillors who said that past Security Councillors made private comments with the expectation that they will not be released, so we should be more cautious about releasing them without their consent. But then I thought about our current Freedom of Information Act. At the time it was written, were there not people who had been part of the Cabinet but had left when the bill was passed? If it wasn't and isn't a concern for Cabinet members, why is it a concern for Security Council members? Wouldn't both have made comments with the expectation of privacy? If there's no regional security threat to their comments being released, why shouldn't it be? Seems like much ado about nothing.
 
I didn't care much about this whole debate, and voted for the previous bill by Praetor because I thought it was reasonable. I was even somewhat inclined to agree with Security Councillors who said that past Security Councillors made private comments with the expectation that they will not be released, so we should be more cautious about releasing them without their consent. But then I thought about our current Freedom of Information Act. At the time it was written, were there not people who had been part of the Cabinet but had left when the bill was passed? If it wasn't and isn't a concern for Cabinet members, why is it a concern for Security Council members? Wouldn't both have made comments with the expectation of privacy? If there's no regional security threat to their comments being released, why shouldn't it be? Seems like much ado about nothing.
I’ve repeatedly posted in this discussion about how the two areas are different. There’s a much greater connection in executive business to the average citizen and a direct impact on the region’s business from those discussions. This would make me much more inclined to expect greater disclosure from the executive.

Having said that, the expectation of privacy is still a concern. I can’t speak for how this was decided back then, only for now. I don’t find it a compelling argument to say that people back then didn’t care about something so why should we? If that were applicable logic, I would say why we are applying this to the SC when no one felt it was important to do so back then? I think we would all agree that’s silly, so it’s just as silly for you to dismiss this concern on that basis.
 
I would like for formal debate to be shortened to 4 days.
With less than five hours to go before Formal Debate ends, I'm inclined not to acquiesce. However, I'm nothing if not one for seeing if something can be done, even if it shouldn't, and I'll allow it.

Formal Debate is now over - the bill as last amended is what is going to vote and a vote will begin on Sunday the 6th of September at around 4pm in the afternoon British Summer Time.
 
Back
Top