|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 23, 2007 17:55:46 GMT -6
The bill is in violation of the Second covenant and you have yet to prove that "broosking" as you call it has threatened the public order. And the punishment is draconian. It should be graduated. I don't want to get too heavily into any partisan rhetoric, but you will note how many new citizens have joined the LRT after being broosked. How many would have joined otherwise? We'll never know, as the process by which they have entered the country has been touched with this. This is very minor, but consider if it were to continue. A new citizen is brought before the Minister of Immigration. This Minister is a member of the RUMP, so he follows up the forms with a nice invitation to join the RUMP once the citizen is naturalized. In the period before naturalization, the citizen is contacted by a wide variety of individuals, all of whom try to persuade him to join their party. The leader of the LRT says that the RUMP cannot be trusted, and that their corruption taints the whole of Talossa. The leader of the CRO promises to block the immigration unless the prospective agrees with CRO policies, although not in so many words. The leader of the CCCP... well, you get the picture. Does the potential citizen have a chance to form their own political opinion? No. They are assaulted on all fronts by the inevitable result if this activity is permitted and broosking is allowed. This is what will happen... in fact, it will be mandatory for any party that wishes to survive to try to engage in this, if they wish to survive. Imagine being a party that did not... your party would get fewer and fewer applicants, while an opposition party with seemingly inferior policies would get a steady succession. It will be broosking, not policies or performance, that determine success. And with incompetence gaining a greater and greater percentage of the Ziu, it won't be too long before Talossa itself is threatened. May I suggest that it be called "Ffiving" Fishing For Immigrant Votes? What is the etymology of this "broosking" It is strongly recommended you read the whole of the first post.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Dec 23, 2007 18:03:21 GMT -6
S:reu Davis,
Laws are not made out of "What if" scenarios. What exact problem is this legislation proposing to solve?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 23, 2007 18:12:37 GMT -6
Since you require more specific explication: The LRT has recruited people before they became citizens, to the contrary of long-established tradition. This law is intended to prevent more people from being similarly recruited along the same lines by any party, since the LRT has made it clear that we cannot rely on people to know and follow this tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Dec 23, 2007 18:30:31 GMT -6
We have informed people of the fact that there is an election occurring and we have informed people of our party. I think the reason why this is viewed as problem for you, in particular, is that so many of those people saw fit to vote for something they liked.
Either way, this legislation would not prevent anyone from continuing to do that. Nor should it be prevented.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 23, 2007 18:43:08 GMT -6
...I'm sorry, are you now denying that the LRT recruited prospective citizens before they were naturalized?
Informed citizens can vote for whomever they want, and I would never try to take steps to stop that. But this legislation would have stopped the LRT actions which you and the other party leader, S:reu Gavarpich, have disavowed, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 23, 2007 18:49:07 GMT -6
You know what? I don't like the way this is going. I am open to all avenues of action. What I am not open to is simply doing nothing. Recent events have made it clear that doing nothing will not solve what appears to me to be a pretty grievous threat. What is your alternative proposal? If it is better, I will happily ditch this entire bill or edit it appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Dec 23, 2007 18:51:07 GMT -6
Amazingly, the key word in that sentence is 'informed'. We did not recruit we informed. We agree with you, an informed person, usually makes a better decision.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Dec 23, 2007 18:58:49 GMT -6
I think that you should allow the parties to take care of this internally. Also, I think you should allow the summit that the Prime Minister has called to proceed without further partisan grand-standing.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 23, 2007 19:03:02 GMT -6
I guess I'm not terribly surprised by your responses.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Dec 23, 2007 19:04:15 GMT -6
I aim to please, darlin.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 23, 2007 19:15:35 GMT -6
I wish there was some way to solve the partisan divide that appears to only be growing. I truly believe that both sides want only the best for the country. When I wrote this bill, I deliberately avoided attacking any parties to the best of my ability, and intended for it to apply to all equally. I don't like this nonsense, and every time I get dragged into it I regret it strongly. It's hard for me to dismiss things like this with a flippant comment. I want to solve the problem, to strengthen the nation and help her grow. Perhaps my bill isn't the right solution. I'm wrong more than my share of the time. I will wait for more commentary, in the hope of an alternative or constructive criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Dec 23, 2007 19:24:35 GMT -6
Your previous comment explains why I like you so much. I think the Prime Minister's Summit will bridge the divide.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 23, 2007 19:25:10 GMT -6
We can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 24, 2007 10:44:25 GMT -6
Whilst a formal ban on pre-naturalisation propaganda may be in order, I thoroughly disagree with an extended probationery period beyond the present 2 weeks of immigration procedure. A citizen has more than enough time in that period to read the laws, and if they do not you can hardly expect a further two weeks to fix that.
I remember the words of St Paul to Timothy: “Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. ... Do not neglect your gift."
An extended probationery period just seems like a way of ignoring that fantastic truth, but for no advantage.
A brief citizenship test might make more sense.
|
|
Vit Caçeir
"I hated being AG so much I fled as far from it as literally possible."
Posts: 810
Talossan Since: 11-19-2007
|
Post by Vit Caçeir on Dec 24, 2007 12:05:14 GMT -6
The bill is in violation of the Second covenant and you have yet to prove that "broosking" as you call it has threatened the public order. Forgive me for causing our party's stance to appear contradictory, but what part of this violates the Second Covenant? If I am to understand correctly, the Second Covenant provides the protection of freedom of speech, with the sole exception of maintaining public order. Hypothetically, say some die-hard anti-monarch promised a bunch of prospectives a seat of power if they voted with his new party when they earned their citizenship. Who's to say one person with the power to persuade some naive newcomers couldn't become the next P.U.N.K. leader, who would lead this country through another time where the foundations of our very Kingdom are threatened? Although 6 months is an awfully long time, I believe a probationary period in which the newcoming citizen in question is given time to learn about Talossan politics and formalities before they are exploited by a political party does not violate the rights guaranteed by the Second Covenant.
|
|