[Passed] Reject Fascism Bill

Once the objections come into force I will be motioning to override them.
 
Greater Ale Permars:
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.
Click to expand...
Noises from admin has been saying it's not their issue.

So if its not admin's issue, and it's not a TNP Government issue, just who can the community rely on to protect itself from fascists?
 
When stating that a nation has engaged in promoting fascism will fail vice-delegate check won’t that mean that the vice-delegate will have to fail citizenship applications against former fascists who (let’s say) promoted fascism in 2013 but is no longer considered fascist.
Personally I think using has recently or similar gives the vice-delegate a decision to not have to fail an application like the example above and the vice delegate will determine themselves how far back in time they want “recently” to go.
 
Skaraborg:
When stating that a nation has engaged in promoting fascism will fail vice-delegate check won’t that mean that the vice-delegate will have to fail citizenship applications against former fascists who (let’s say) promoted fascism in 2013 but is no longer considered fascist.
Personally I think using has recently or similar gives the vice-delegate a decision to not have to fail an application like the example above and the vice delegate will determine themselves how far back in time they want “recently” to go.
Click to expand...
Remember that every rejection goes to the RA for a vote. If the VD rejects someone for past fascist behavior and there’s any doubt as to whether the person is still engaging in it, the RA can make that determination and the VD can certainly advise them. It’s possible for people to change, but when you consider that our current security checks take into account past behavior of applicants that may also be said to not be relevant to current times, this is not inconsistent with how the VD check currently operates.
 
Pallaith:
Remember that every rejection goes to the RA for a vote. If the VD rejects someone for past fascist behavior and there’s any doubt as to whether the person is still engaging in it, the RA can make that determination and the VD can certainly advise them. It’s possible for people to change, but when you consider that our current security checks take into account past behavior of applicants that may also be said to not be relevant to current times, this is not inconsistent with how the VD check currently operates.
Click to expand...
I feel like it’s unnecessary that the RA would have to vote on something like my example in my post above because they would probably most likely pass anyways. I think it would be better if the VD took their security check decision more after what has happened in recent events with the person rather than a look into the past to find fascists from years back. If they’re proven to be innocent there is no point.
 
Last edited:
Skaraborg:
I feel like it’s unnecessary that the RA would have to vote on something like my example in my post above because they would probably most likely pass anyways. I think it would be better if the VD took their security check decision more after what has happened in recent events with the person rather than a look into the past to find fascists from years back. If they’re proven to be innocent there is no point.
Click to expand...
Again, the VD can only go off of what they can find. Recent or otherwise, it’s relevant to their review. And if something from the past can be reasoned to not be relevant compared to more recent things, then the RA can absolutely take that into account. If I’m possibly understanding what you’re looking for here, I think it’s that you don’t want the VD to be forced to fail them, but want even more judgment on their part? So this is more an explicit option and less a requirement?
 
This is an online community, not an actual country. Stop using the UN declaration of rights to promote your argument, it’s completely ridiculous.
 
Comfed:
This is an online community, not an actual country. Stop using the UN declaration of rights to promote your argument, it’s completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that (if we really want to go into deep in-character mode) there is no "United Nations". What does the World Assembly say about the issue? Well, we did just recently pass SC Resolution #358.
 
The WA is obviously irrelevant to this region’s internal laws, as are laws outside this game. I know you guys know that, I just want to pull the focus back to the actual issue at hand here.

To be absolutely clear, I don’t necessarily believe this particular change needs to wait for admin to respond, and can exist regardless of what they do, but I understand that a lot of people feel that in the absence of that response, they aren’t sure if they want to proceed with changes of this nature not knowing what may be required going forward. Out of respect for that, I won’t push this bill over objections quite yet (and won’t raise an issue with the fact the Speaker took no action on the scheduling when he should have, though obviously I will note that here).
 
Pallaith:
(and won’t raise an issue with the fact the Speaker took no action on the scheduling when he should have, though obviously I will note that here).
Click to expand...
My sincere apologies. I have been traveling IRL the last few days and this slipped my mind. As of Saturday night, Formal Debate has closed. As previously noted, at least three citizens have objected to the scheduling of a vote. As such, no vote will be scheduled.

As of right now, quorum stands at 18 citizens. Per Section 1.4 of the Rules of the Regional Assembly, a number equal or greater to one-third of quorum, including the proposer, must motion to override the objections.
St George:
Once the objections come into force I will be motioning to override them.
Click to expand...
Noted. Counting MJ's objection, 5 more citizens, including Pallaith, must motion to override the objections.
 
El Fiji Grande:
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.)
Click to expand...
I should not have to worry about regularly defending my right to exist within a community I choose to be a part of.
 
Prydania:
I should not have to worry about regularly defending my right to exist within a community I choose to be a part of.
Click to expand...
Gonna be real, this singlehandedly changed my mind.

I never cared much for the DeEp ThOuGhTs philosophical arguments some people have been making against this bill. It just seemed to me that the handling of toxic ideological extremist users - in particular far-right/alt-right users, by far the most potentially subversive and dangerous of these online groups - was more of an issue for administration because it didn't have to do with the governance of the region or NS gameplay politics and was a more serious, personal matter.

What changed my mind was the phrase "community I choose to be a part of". I think more often than some of us like, we think in terms of "in character" and "out of character" and I think it's important for us to always remember what some have said time and time again: that split is a myth. It doesn't exist; at the very least it hasn't for years. What this region is is one of many online communities that interact through each other through a shared platform - NationStates.net - that choose to govern themselves in a more organized manner because of the spirit of NationStates.net, that being a political simulator.

At the end of the day, regardless of how organized and country-like some regions, especially ours, can be, we must remember that we are not a country. We are a small online community and in that regard I think it's perfectly acceptable for us to refuse to allow certain people into this community if we feel they do not abide by our values. Businesses actually do this all the time IRL; sometimes in rather problematic ways but sometimes in much more justified ways, such as refusing service to someone who consistently disturbs the peace in the store for other shoppers and employees alike.

Considering who we're talking about banning here, this definitely falls more in line with being justified. So then we must ask, how can the community make its will known on whether these users are incompatible with our values? Well, we have a Regional Assembly. With that said, while I still obviously think Admin has a responsibility to uphold our community rules, so too does our government - Admin takes care of some rules and the TNP Government takes care of others, depending on the nature of said rules. I no longer think Admin and the TNP Government ought to remain separate and that there exists this arbitrary binary between them. They can and should work together to make our community a better place. This is a great opportunity for that.

tl;dr I'll be supporting this bill now and I join the motions to override the objections.
 
Last edited:
With admin having now responded, I drop my objection to schedule a vote. If such a thing can't be recognized, oh well. I also motion for an immediate vote.
 
I also motion for an immediate vote.
Prydania:
I should not have to worry about regularly defending my right to exist within a community I choose to be a part of.
Click to expand...
I think this argument should be highlighted because of how important it is. The idea that fascism should be allowed to be promoted in our community because being exposed to alternative arguments is a complete fallacy because of exactly this. The fact is that permitting an ideology that at its core calls people's right to exist into question greatly harms the community, especially members of marginalised groups IRL.
 
I also motion for an immediate vote.

I'm not sure if this needs to be done now or wait to see what these Community Guidelines are. That being said, there's nothing preventing a repeal of this law should the guidelines prove to be sufficient. I don't want this bill to not proceed to vote because of some objections to the scheduling of the vote, hence the motion for an immediate vote.
 
Given the admin's answer, I also motion for an immediate vote.

Ultimately, however, I will be voting against. Not because of the disagreement with the intention behind the proposal; I believe that codifying a particular exception isn't necessarily the best way to go, because it is completely unnecessary if VDs can just exercise their judgement that people with such mentalities will exhibit behaviour that threatens the region's peace and therefore, security.

I would also like to implore the Speaker to schedule a vote duration of the minimum possible. While we are unable to officially make such a request, I hope the Speaker can understand the importance and urgency of this vote.
 
So we don't get into the precedent or practice of pre-emptive motions, re-iterating my motion to override the objections and hold an immediate vote.
 
Syrixia:
I join the motions to override the objections.
Click to expand...

Sil Dorsett:
I also motion for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

Comfed:
I also motion for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

Praetor:
I also motion for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

Fregerson:
I also motion for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

Pallaith:
I join the motion for an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

St George:
re-iterating my motion to override the objections and hold an immediate vote.
Click to expand...

Noted. I will be posting a thread shortly.
 
This is now at vote. As a note:
Fregerson:
I would also like to implore the Speaker to schedule a vote duration of the minimum possible. While we are unable to officially make such a request, I hope the Speaker can understand the importance and urgency of this vote.
Click to expand...
While I understand the importance of the ongoing vote, I believe that importance requires that the vote last for the maximum duration. This bill is highly controversial and to schedule the vote duration at the minimum would be an unnecessary rush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top