[Passed] Reject Fascism Bill

Pallaith

Pallaith

TNPer
-
-
-
-
Super simple, super non-controversial, super late, but if the best time to do this was long ago, the second best time is right now. With that in mind, I present the following:

Chapter 6: Regional Assembly Statutes:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 7 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
6. The Vice Delegate will automatically fail any applicant who identifies as fascist or has engaged in the promotion of fascism.
7. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
Click to expand...

In lieu of doing a markup, since this is a simple change, I have bolded the new clause I have added to the legal code.

The only objection I anticipate is "what about IC fascist RP?" It should be clear that this is not what is being targeted here, and we can't really state that in a law like this. However, I see no other recourse. If it helps, all I can say is, you can play authoritarian without being an explicit fascist. And if you can't really distinguish, then this is collateral damage we're just going to have live with. Life is too short to indulge this, and our laws are not designed to protect people like this. We have a proud history in TNP of having robust rights and freedoms as well as being a place where almost anyone can make it. I do not believe this community wants fascists to be part of that number. TNP has been an advocate for strong, aggressive and decisive action against fascism in NS for years now. We decided as a community that leaving them to their own devices, denouncing and ignoring them at times is not sufficient. It is strange we would then be comfortable letting known fascists join our community and have the privileges of citizenship, something that members of our community who desperately want it have not even been able to enjoy. We're voting on an amendment to give non-citizens a chance because of the limitations of our citizenship laws. But we'll allow fascists to walk in unbothered?

I am not comfortable, as I said in the discussion of the Boston Amendment, telling admins how to do their jobs and stating such in law. I believe the separation between OOC and IC is too important. I believe admins are the proper remedy for handling fascists in this region. But in the absence of clear guidance or action from those admins, we have to do something. This is the simplest thing, it is consistent with existing law and practice, and allows those who feel barring fascists at the door is not within the box of "security threat" and those who do to have common ground, while the VD has an extra tool at his disposal that is explicit in its limitation. We need not fear the slippery slope.

Out of respect I won't immediately call for a vote on this, but I hope we can come to a swift agreement, and when we do, cut down on the waiting time for the actual vote. Let's codify where our community already is on fighting fascism and continuing to eliminate our tolerance for it.
 
Last edited:
I believe in the VD's ability to be able to differentiate between RP someone who actively engages in and actual promotes fascism.

Support
 
Last edited:
I would prefer that this be handled throu the admins, but failing that I can support this.
 
The expressed ideology of a nation is an OOC issue, and thereby an admin concern. If nothing else, it belongs in the admin check, not the VD check.

Nevertheless, I am strongly opposed to anyone declining citizenship based on any ideology - even fascism. I feel that if people violate community guidelines, they can then be subject to suspension or expulsion, but we shouldn't be presuming such guilt upon entry. How do you rectify this bill with Sections 1 & 2 of our Bill of Rights?
 
Admin is charged with protecting the community from RL bad actors. I can recall at least one instance where we have barred a player because of their disturbing criminal record. It would be beyond the scope of admin duties to investigate everyone's RL ideologies, though. Players who engage in hateful speech or harassment are subject to moderator action. Those are the standards from an admin perspective.

Think of it this way, admin deals with players, and the RA deals with nations.

This is more than a simple change for the RA to enact. I am a little unclear if the intent is to exclude nations or the players behind those nations. I think the desire is to completely eliminate some people from the community, but this is not going to keep them out of the region or off the forum. Also, I believe there are Bill of Rights issues with it. How does this square with each nation's right to self-determination in their domestic policies?
 
Last edited:
Clearly I missed a view potential objections...

@El Fiji Grande : that is not how the admin check works. I have explained this elsewhere, so I am not sure why you said it again. The admin check is concerned with identifying duplicate accounts and people sidestepping forum account bans and the like. It is purely a mechanical thing only admins can do. There's a reason we don't regulate admin action as a general rule. We wouldn't mandate that they fail people for certain things - if something is serious enough for admin to step in, they step in, the legal code has nothing to do with it.

As for the VD check, it's a security check. There's a very convincing argument to be made that barring fascists entry is a move that enhances the security of the community. I've been the VD, and I've on the SC for years, so I know how we view security checks and what constitutes a security threat. I myself am not in the camp that says "of course a fascist is a security threat" but that does not mean they are harmless or desirable to have in the community. The bar is high for the VD check...in our established norms and guidelines for VDs. Not in the law. The law just says they have to do a security check. The VD has a lot of discretion in how they pass or fail applicants, and no matter how clear cut a case it is, it goes to the RA for a vote. That's the check on the VD abusing this power. I personally see the VD failing fascists using the security check as bending our current understanding of what a security threat is. However, they can make their case and the RA can decide if they agree. What this law aims to do is explicitly allow them to fail these sorts of applicants, so we don't have to concern ourselves with stretching the definition of security threats at all.

As for your point about ideology: philosophical principles are nice. Good for you for having a consistent personal code and sticking by it. Your higher thinking and consideration is wasted on these people though. They do not deserve your accommodation. Citizenship is a privilege we allow people to have in TNP to better immerse themselves in our community. It is easy to get because we allow it to be, but there are limits and we decide where to draw those lines. We're not legislating for the United States of America, we're legislating for a small online community in a political simulator. We have the luxury of being a bit more exclusive and more easily defining parameters for who can be part of our community. The stakes with our constitution are not equivalent to the stakes in the real world. Why must we tie our hands behind our back and endure fascists in our community when we can easily choose not to do so? They are not on the same level in the marketplace of ideas that any other ideology is. Surely you have seen that by now? This academic debate of principles needlessly perpetuates a status quo where some people must confront and co-exist with people who would happily see them harmed or dead, or would subjugate them as a lower tier of human being, if they even consider them to be human. There's just no good reason to let that continue. I believe in the principles of this region, I appreciate the robust freedom and rights and the opportunities we offer that many other regions do not. I do not believe we need to extend them to fascists. We have never had this strong a response to anyone other than them. For years. It is clear where we drew the line, and we have never crossed it. This law explicitly limits the VD's additional rejection power to fascists. If we were going to go broader, we would need to draft a law to do so. The slippery slope is simply not a factor here.

You are correct that violating community guidelines leads to punishment. And of course that would happen if it is warranted. We're recognizing a fundamentally incompatible type of player attempting to be part of our community, and saying no. It's no stretch of the imagination to say what kind of person they are and what they might do. Why do we have to wait for them to break a rule to get booted, when we have a pretty good idea what they're capable of? I hope you don't apply the same logic to our security check, because it is by definition preventative and concerned with what has been done elsewhere, and from there guessing what the person may do here if given the chance. People get rejected by the VD for plenty of things, none of which I would ever say are as bad as the harm a fascist can cause, or as ugly as what a fascist professes. And if the VD's case is weak, the RA will be the judge, as they are with any VD rejection.

@Great Bights Mum briefly touching on the admin bit: I don't think you have to go so far as to investigate their ideology in real life. We see plenty of fascists on NS and it doesn't matter if the horrible things they say and promote are what they truly believe when they log off the site - we act accordingly. This law is not trying to make a call IC or OOC. Part of why I went this route is because the VD check has enough discretion built in that we can blur those lines a bit.

GBM, anyone who is clearly a fascist, clear enough to be barred citizenship under this bill, has engaged in hateful speech somewhere we could see. I wouldn't be here proposing this change to our law if I could rely on the fact that admin would imply eliminate the fascists as a matter of course. Short of admin taking a very clear and swift stand on this matter, this is the easiest way for us to take action. Changes that go beyond this bill would address some of what you mentioned: making fascists subject to summary ejection and banning for instance, would clear them off the gameside. Dealing with their forum and Discord accounts is an admin matter, however. A few others have also been working on legal changes to clearly bar fascists from our community outside of this process.

If admin deals with the player, and we deal with the nation, then obviously this law can only deal with the nation. The reason why putting this in the VD check works is because if we can determine a nation is controlled by the same player who was previously rejected for being a fascist, then we can bar them again. Obviously if the connection is unknown then we can't really deal with that.

I don't really have much to say about the bill of rights objection. I'm not trying to deal with IC fascist RP, and that's who I believe the bill of rights protects, on the grounds that it is concerned with IC. I admit it's a fine line to walk. We could amend the bill of rights, but that would put us squarely in the middle of explicitly addressing OOC vs. IC stuff in something that is intended to be IC. It would explicitly require putting the kabosh on RP that plays with fascism. I really didn't want to do that, but I will say again that I don't think that's a big loss if it comes to it. I share your view that I want admin to take the lead on this. I want admin to see a fascist at our door an turn them away. I want them to give them the boot, not just as citizens, but in all areas, and keep them out of our community. I don't want us to be wordsmithing and arguing and pontificating about something that this community not only clearly wants, but needs. Some people really like the super serious, litigious TNP, which pretends to be something out of 1776. I know a lot of people have fun with that, sometimes I do too. And we still can. I think we can turn that off for the sake of continuing our newer proud tradition of taking on fascism wherever we can, and see to it that we clean up our own backyard too.
 
This legislation is not treading a fine line with the Bill of Rights, as you allege. It fully crosses it, by specifically infringing on a nation's right to self-determination and free speech. TNP's Constitution and Bill of Rights are the very foundation of the democracy we cherish in this region. By standing with our region's laws, I'm supporting that foundation. If this is the path you believe the region should take, you should instead have those sections of the Bill of Rights stricken from the record. Our Bill of Rights means nothing if we make exceptions for those we don't like or whose views we find unpalatable. I view this as a proposal for censorship, plain and simple.

Our Bill of Rights applies to every nation in our region, whether they choose to apply for citizenship or not. Once we allow free speech to be questioned for some, then what should be a right becomes a privilege. An attack on some is an attack on all. Do not make the mistake of conflating my support for our Bill of Rights as support for fascists or the views they espouse. But I don't want to be a part of a community in which my rights are revoked in favor of the recently-fashionable belief that unpalatable opinions ought to be criminalized.
TlomzKrano:
I believe in the VD's ability to be able to differentiate between RP someone who actively engages in and actual promotes fascism.
Click to expand...
I'd like to note - I think this interpretation is false. Despite Ghost's explanation, the law would be clear: This proposal does not give the VD more discretion, since it institutes an automatic fail of the security check on these standards, rather than saying that the VD can fail on these standards - if they choose to.
 
Last edited:
El Fiji Grande:
This legislation is not treading a fine line with the Bill of Rights, as you allege. It fully crosses it, by specifically infringing on a nation's right to self-determination and free speech. TNP's Constitution and Bill of Rights are the very foundation of the democracy we cherish in this region. By standing with our region's laws, I'm supporting that foundation. If this is the path you believe the region should take, you should instead have those sections of the Bill of Rights stricken from the record. Our Bill of Rights means nothing if we make exceptions for those we don't like or whose views we find unpalatable. I view this as a proposal for censorship, plain and simple.

Our Bill of Rights applies to every nation in our region, whether they choose to apply for citizenship or not. Once we allow free speech to be questioned for some, then what should be a right becomes a privilege. An attack on some is an attack on all. Do not make the mistake of conflating my support for our Bill of Rights as support for fascists or the views they espouse. But I don't want to be a part of a community in which my rights are revoked in favor of the recently-fashionable belief that unpalatable opinions ought to be criminalized.

I'd like to note - I think this interpretation is false. Despite Ghost's explanation, the law would be clear: This proposal does not give the VD more discretion, since it institutes an automatic fail of the security check on these standards, rather than saying that the VD can fail on these standards - if they choose to.
Click to expand...
Unpalatable beliefs. Interesting way to describe fascists.

This law does not infringe on their right to self determination and free speech. It denies them an automatic pass to citizenship if they are fascist. They are free to be fascist - unfortunately this law does not stop them from still being around. That's also in the works. This is not censorship. We are not preventing them from saying horrible fascist things, we are denying them an automatic pass to citizenship. And you arguing with Tlomz about discretion misunderstands my point about it. The law mandates automatic fails for fascists, yes, but the VD still has to identify who is a fascist, and there is some discretion in identifying them. He doesn't get to be wishy washy about denying someone who is one, once that determination is made, but he still has to make the determination. This is what would protect the IC RP people.

We fundamentally disagree on not only the nature of fascism - you seem to think it's a matter of personal distaste and "unpalatable beliefs," I think they're far worse than that - but on who is welcome in our community and what we can do about it. We are perfectly capable of treating fascists differently than everyone else, they are on an entirely different level than say, communists or democrats or utilitarians or any philosophy or belief system under the sun. I know you know that. I don't know why you want to make this big stand by protecting them under the umbrella of everyone else in the community. A community that apparently is not worth you sticking around if it keeps fascists from becoming citizens, or, as I believe is your real concern, gives them boot entirely just for being fascist. That's quite a statement to make, Fiji, but if you would prefer a community that allows fascists to mingle unbothered, I am confident you'll find one. I'm sure the NPA will give you a wave when it shows up to bash them.
 
Don't pretend like I'm misunderstanding, Ghost. This is a bill specifically intended to be selectively prejudicial against fascists. (You said so yourself in #regional-assembly-private, with your idea to exempt fascists from our Bill of Rights.) By automatically failing citizenship checks, this proposal seeks to regulate and police free speech, which very much is an infringement of our rights. If I don't stand for my principles, then I stand for nothing at all.

Providing for free speech on a legal, constitutional level does not mean giving these people a free ride. We most certainly wouldn't let them 'mingle unbothered,' but instead confront and challenge their views. They can be ignored and ostracized on a community level, but they cannot be treated differently on a legal basis.
 
El Fiji Grande:
Don't pretend like I'm misunderstanding, Ghost. This is a bill specifically intended to be selectively prejudicial against fascists. (You said so yourself in #regional-assembly-private, with your idea to exempt fascists from our Bill of Rights.) By automatically failing citizenship checks, this proposal seeks to regulate and police free speech, which very much is an infringement of our rights. If I don't stand for my principles, then I stand for nothing at all.

Providing for free speech on a legal, constitutional level does not mean giving these people a free ride. We most certainly wouldn't let them 'mingle unbothered,' but instead confront and challenge their views. They can be ignored and ostracized on a community level, but they cannot be treated differently on a legal basis.
Click to expand...

My comment about excepting from the bill of rights is not in this bill. This bill controls how a citizenship check is done. It creates consequences for speech, it does not regulate that speech. To the extent you misunderstand, that is where you are doing it. As to what my ultimate aim is, you understand that perfectly.

I'm not interested in being held hostage by principles that fascists don't value. I am sick of this canard about ignoring them, ostracizing them, challenging their views, as if they respond to a polite debate about whether it's okay for them to treat others as sub-human and dream of their death. I don't think they're going to respond to that challenge, and I don't see how such a debate would be fruitful or useful for anyone. I'm really disappointed that you still think, in freaking 2021, that this is the best way to handle fascists. Who says they can't be treated differently legally? It may sound like we're arguing about this in the real world, but this is a community connected to NS. It's a game. We do not need to go this far, standing on these principles. This is a clubhouse, we can say fascists can't be part of it. You want to defend fascists' rights to march and exercise their First Amendment rights offline, knock yourself out. But there's no need for you to martyr yourself for their sake in an online browser game.
 
Fascists subscribe to an atrocious ideology which I do not believe can peacefully and productively coexist with the TNP Community - a community which is home to many people whom fascists would like to see wiped from this Earth - in any way, shape or form. There can be no home for fascism in TNP, lest we set ourselves up for destruction.

I support this bill.
 
Last edited:
El Fiji Grande:
Don't pretend like I'm misunderstanding, Ghost. This is a bill specifically intended to be selectively prejudicial against fascists. (You said so yourself in #regional-assembly-private, with your idea to exempt fascists from our Bill of Rights.) By automatically failing citizenship checks, this proposal seeks to regulate and police free speech, which very much is an infringement of our rights. If I don't stand for my principles, then I stand for nothing at all.
Click to expand...
And this is the problem. Frankly, there should be no free speech for fascists. There should be no allowance for fascists in our community.

Providing for free speech on a legal, constitutional level does not mean giving these people a free ride. We most certainly wouldn't let them 'mingle unbothered,' but instead confront and challenge their views. They can be ignored and ostracized on a community level, but they cannot be treated differently on a legal basis.
Click to expand...
So tell me, Fiji, what have you done to confront and challenge Whole India's views?
 
I cannot and will not be part of a community that allows facsist and that is okay with allowing facsist. It's a pretty simple thing. It's not a disagreement on political beliefs. It's not conservative vs liberal. It's fascists.
 
Ghost, since we are adding a new task to the VD check would you consider amending 6.5 to something like this? See part of my reasoning here https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194863/#post-10422143

The Vice Delegate will have 7 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. shall perform a security evaluation on an applicant. The Vice Delegate shall have 10 days to pass an applicant starting from the date of the last check conducted on the applicant, but may fail the applicant at anytime during the citizenship application process. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
Click to expand...
 
No. That change wouldn’t have changed what happened here. 99% of VD checks do not even take the original 3 days that the law used to provide for.

In theory having a longer period of time to work with can be useful, but in practice it is not needed, even in the 1% of cases where the VD needs to consult with the SC. I’m not necessarily opposed to increasing that period, but it’s not really going to mitigate these kinds of scenarios. A change like what I proposed more directly addresses the problem.
 
Would it not be simpler to word the section to say something along the lines that the Vice Delegate, Speaker, or Administration team may fail an applicant for conduct unbecoming of a citizen?
 
Support.

Dreadton:
Ghost, since we are adding a new task to the VD check would you consider amending 6.5 to something like this? See part of my reasoning here https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9194863/#post-10422143
Click to expand...
Oracle:
Would it not be simpler to word the section to say something along the lines that the Vice Delegate, Speaker, or Administration team may fail an applicant for conduct unbecoming of a citizen?
Click to expand...
I don't think that adding riders to such a straightforward bill is a good idea. This would be better discussed/handled in a separate bill.
 
Cretox State:
I don't think that adding riders to such a straightforward bill is a good idea. This would be better discussed/handled in a separate bill.
Click to expand...
My suggestion isn't so much a rider to this bill as a change of phrasing.
 
Oracle:
My suggestion isn't so much a rider to this bill as a change of phrasing.
Click to expand...
We want to avoid being vague or too general. What constitutes “conduct unbecoming of a citizen?” We want to go after fascists because fascists are a special case, and warrant this kind of response. I’m not here to open the doors to letting citizenship be blocked for any old thing.
 
El Fiji Grande:
I'd like to note - I think this interpretation is false. Despite Ghost's explanation, the law would be clear: This proposal does not give the VD more discretion, since it institutes an automatic fail of the security check on these standards, rather than saying that the VD can fail on these standards - if they choose to.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Who would enforce such an "Automatic Fail". The VD would still have to go through with failing them, and thus could be culpable for failure to do so. Also they would have to use some discretion in figuring out if that nation is in fact a fash, meaning they *can* fail to fail them while being legally required to.
 
I am reminding the RA that this bill is on the floor and I intend to call for a vote barring any convincing or compelling suggestions.
 
I do not post in the Regional Assembly often, but I am glad to see something like this come up and fully support the language and the intention behind it!
 
I oppose any sort of litmus test that is going to discriminate against a citizenship application based on ideology. I am open to taking actions against people who after joining actually do something reprehensible. This move to preemptively profile people is a can of worms I certainly do not want opened even for a well meaning cause such as minimizing and removing fascism from our citizenry and furthermore community. If you don't like philosophy, stop reading here.

TNP's legal codes seem to be based on Enlightenment liberalism which emphasizes the dignity and freedom of the individual in order for them to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, so on so on so on. Ideological discrimination is not really a part of that equation since it is all about pluralities and majority opinions in order to write and protect the laws of the nation. This sort of bill moves against the traditional liberal notions that inform the very law of the region, and I find that inconsistency problematic. I'm not even a very big fan of Enlightenment liberal democracy, but I do find it important that the region remain true to its political ideals . . . unless we are currently on a road to change how we govern.
 
Wonderess:
I oppose any sort of litmus test that is going to discriminate against a citizenship application based on ideology. I am open to taking actions against people who after joining actually do something reprehensible. This move to preemptively profile people is a can of worms I certainly do not want opened even for a well meaning cause such as minimizing and removing fascism from our citizenry and furthermore community. If you don't like philosophy, stop reading here.

TNP's legal codes seem to be based on Enlightenment liberalism which emphasizes the dignity and freedom of the individual in order for them to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, so on so on so on. Ideological discrimination is not really a part of that equation since it is all about pluralities and majority opinions in order to write and protect the laws of the nation. This sort of bill moves against the traditional liberal notions that inform the very law of the region, and I find that inconsistency problematic. I'm not even a very big fan of Enlightenment liberal democracy, but I do find it important that the region remain true to its political ideals . . . unless we are currently on a road to change how we govern.
Click to expand...
Why should we let in people who don’t believe in those principles and want to exploit them to harm others?
 
I believe that the things we cherish, the values we promote, and the community that we’ve sought to create, all demand that we draw this line and give fascists no opportunity to count themselves among the core of community. I say core because naturally, as had been touched on earlier, the VD stopping their application does not prevent them from being present as a resident Gameside or as a member of this forum more generally. A policy change at the admin level would render this step unnecessary and guarantee that they could have no presence anywhere in TNP. But without that change, they are still benefiting from those rights and protections that Wondo and Fiji are so concerned about. We aren’t just disregarding them - please consider how much effort I and others have made to prevent precisely the slippage into broader elimination of these rights that lead precise language could lead to. This can fairly be said to be an extraordinary move for TNP given how so often it is slow to act and takes these principles so seriously that we annoy ourselves with how we abide by them and keep them at the forefront. It’s because we’re like that that I’m confident we won’t slide down some slippery slope to tearing our constitutional foundation to shreds.

In a lot of ways, this discussion has gone a bit ahead of the curve. There will be other efforts to prevent fascists from freely frolicking in TNP, and they are better done in other legislation. Those efforts will build on and support the one I have here, but this is the swiftest piece of that larger puzzle, and will cover a major area by itself. I’m sure some like those who already posted in this discussion will be there too fighting hard for...the right of fascists to be treated the same under our law as the members of our community the law is intended to protect and serve, I guess. But I don’t think that fight is that directly related to this particular bill, nor do I think there’s room to be too creative with the language.

Given that, I move for a vote, and ask that the Speaker expedite the formal debate period so that it ends tomorrow, and that he then schedule a vote as soon as possible once that period ends.
 
Comfed:
Why should we let in people who don’t believe in those principles and want to exploit them to harm others?
Click to expand...
Put another way, why should people we disagree with have rights?

So let me ask: why should you have any rights? Why should any of us have any rights? It's because the rights that are granted to us by our regional constitution are based on (as Wonderess was saying) Enlightment principles of human rights. These ideas are still with us today in the form of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I shouldn't have to be saying this, but human rights are important principles in any democratic society, as they embody the values we live by, including equal protection and fairness. Don't believe me? See Articles 18, 19, & 21. I encourage you to read all of the articles, because they represent the foundation of a democracy.
Code: 
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 21: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
By making exceptions to our Bill of Rights, we're literally denying other people their human rights. We're discriminating against individuals in our community on a political basis. And we're showing that we ourselves don't believe these principles should apply to everyone, which eases future arguments that they shouldn't apply to us either. However well-intentioned this bill aims to be, it will weaken all North Pacifican rights, not just those who would be persecuted here. As Montesquieu said, "The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded." This is as true for TNP as it is for real nations.
 
El Fiji Grande:
why should you have any rights? Why should any of us have any rights?
Click to expand...
On this, it depends on what branch of legal philosophy will you be taking as a base for your argument. Iusnaturalism, positivism...
 
Pallaith:
Given that, I move for a vote, and ask that the Speaker expedite the formal debate period so that it ends tomorrow, and that he then schedule a vote as soon as possible once that period ends.
Click to expand...
The motion is acknowledged. The bill is now in Formal Debate during which it may be amended. Per the proposer’s request, Formal Debate will last for 1 day, after which time no more amendments may be made.
 
As a citizen and thereby member of the RA, under Section 1.3 of the Regional Assembly Rules, I formally object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote on this bill. Discussion is clearly still under way, and I disapprove of the hasty schedule for Formal Debate, especially given the contradictions this poses with our Bill of Rights. I call on fellow members of the RA to also object.
 
Slightly confused about the mentioned roleplay aspects but nonetheless support. Fascism has no place in our privately operated community, and have nor deserve to have protections.
 
We're not the ones who are imprisoning and executing real people for their political beliefs. I don't think the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights really applies here. From an out-of-character perspective, we're a private gaming community, and we have the right to determine who is welcome to be in this community. That being said, because this is more of an out-of-character issue of dismissing players who are incompatible with our community, I'd rather administration be the ones handling this, with us taking the in-character route only if necessary. I want to see administration's response to this whole incident before we vote on this, so... I object to the scheduling of a vote.

Edit: I believe I just became the third to object. Totally unintentional, but effective nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
El Fiji Grande:
As a citizen and thereby member of the RA, under Section 1.3 of the Regional Assembly Rules, I formally object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote on this bill. Discussion is clearly still under way, and I disapprove of the hasty schedule for Formal Debate, especially given the contradictions this poses with our Bill of Rights. I call on fellow members of the RA to also object.
Click to expand...

New Celoveniortan:
I, a member of the Regional Assembly, also object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote on this bill.
Click to expand...

Sil Dorsett:
We're not the ones who are imprisoning and executing real people for their political beliefs. I don't think the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights really applies here. From an out-of-character perspective, we're a private gaming community, and we have the right to determine who is welcome to be in this community. That being said, because this is more of an out-of-character issue of dismissing players who are incompatible with our community, I'd rather administration be the ones handling this, with us taking the in-character route only if necessary. I want to see administration's response to this whole incident before we vote on this, so... I object to the scheduling of a vote.

Edit: I believe I just became the third to object. Totally unintentional, but effective nonetheless.
Click to expand...
The objections are acknowledged. As Formal Debate has not yet concluded, no vote as yet has been scheduled. However per Section 4 of the the Standing Procedures:
Section 4 of the Standing Procedures:
Once Formal Debate has ended… Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence.
Click to expand...
A vote will be forthcoming at the conclusion of Formal Debate. Thus, at the conclusion of Formal Debate, the objections will take effect and no vote will be scheduled.
 
I am as anti-fascist as everybody else but this is a moderation/admin issue not one of the TNP Government. Now I do support the banning of fascism OOC but seeing as their rights are protected under the constitution just as much as mine are I can't just say they can be violated even if I despise them. Now if their fascism steps over the line in another field I am perfectly fine with their automatic banishment from TNP.
 
Pallaith:
Unpalatable beliefs. Interesting way to describe fascists.
…
That's quite a statement to make, Fiji, but if you would prefer a community that allows fascists to mingle unbothered, I am confident you'll find one. I'm sure the NPA will give you a wave when it shows up to bash them.
Click to expand...
Before I dive in again to address Sil’s post, I’d like to make sure it’s clear that I despise fascism as much as you do. On the strongest possible terms, I condemn the hateful views these people espouse. It is a disgusting ideology with a horrific past.

And I think you know that about me already. I’ve served extensively in TNP’s regional government and have risen to become a member of our Security Council. I got there not just by being active, but by having the strength of character to build regional trust. So I’d appreciate it if you could hear me out instead of belittling me and questioning my intentions.

One can oppose this bill without thereby also in any way supporting the fascist cause.

With that aside:
Sil Dorsett:
We're not the ones who are imprisoning and executing real people for their political beliefs.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above, fascism is an extreme, evil political ideology that deserves condemnation. That said, while the views of these players are abhorrent, the words they say are not themselves fatal. It’s true that their words can be hurtful and cause emotional distress, but there is a difference between offensive language and physical violence. For all of their faults - these players have not themselves imprisoned or executed anyone for their political beliefs. Instead, it is ironically this very bill that proposes to persecute them on theirs. (And no, I'm not equating real-life violence with in-game policies. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious.)

Sil Dorsett:
I don't think the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights really applies here. From an out-of-character perspective, we're a private gaming community, and we have the right to determine who is welcome to be in this community.
Click to expand...
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear that these rights are applicable “regardless of frontiers.” (See above; I’ve already quoted it.) That means it’s applicable everywhere.

And TNP isn’t just anywhere. NationStates is quite literally a political simulator, and TNP has traditionally strived to be a liberal, democratic region in this game. Calling TNP a private gaming community really isn’t applicable in the IC sense, or relevant in the OOC sense.

Our regional constitution makes it very clear that “All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.” And our Bill of Rights makes it very clear that the free speech of all nations cannot be infringed upon by the regional government. This bill essentially poses as a change within our legal code, but in actuality represents the magnitude of an amendment of our Bill of Rights. It should be treated as such.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top