|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 20, 2014 22:10:40 GMT -6
No, it is still taboo to broosk a prospective, I think. That's another good point... if non-citizens can be members and votes in a political party, aren't we normalizing broosking? As it stands, we have tradition and mutually assured destruction and wisdom holding back the practice, but if it's made okay in the OrgLaw, I'm not sure how well that would hold up, considering all there is to gain.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Feb 20, 2014 22:57:16 GMT -6
No, it is still taboo to broosk a prospective, I think. That's another good point... if non-citizens can be members and votes in a political party, aren't we normalizing broosking? As it stands, we have tradition and mutually assured destruction and wisdom holding back the practice, but if it's made okay in the OrgLaw, I'm not sure how well that would hold up, considering all there is to gain. I do remember a bright young MC that wrote an "Anti-Broosking" Bill. What ever happened to that?
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Feb 21, 2014 6:42:06 GMT -6
I thought we were against "Booksing" . Has that changed? Not in my opinion it hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Adam da Simeon on Feb 21, 2014 9:18:27 GMT -6
I thought we were against "Booksing" . Has that changed? I believe it is 'Broosking' but yes. Wait till they become citizens, then let them decide.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 21, 2014 9:19:07 GMT -6
No, it is still taboo to broosk a prospective, I think. That's another good point... if non-citizens can be members and votes in a political party, aren't we normalizing broosking? As it stands, we have tradition and mutually assured destruction and wisdom holding back the practice, but if it's made okay in the OrgLaw, I'm not sure how well that would hold up, considering all there is to gain. I do remember a bright young MC that wrote an "Anti-Broosking" Bill. What ever happened to that? I couldn't figure out the right way to word it. It's tough making something like that illegal, and I was never satisfied with what I came up with. Maybe it's time to revisit that.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Feb 21, 2014 10:55:58 GMT -6
I do remember a bright young MC that wrote an "Anti-Broosking" Bill. What ever happened to that? I couldn't figure out the right way to word it. It's tough making something like that illegal, and I was never satisfied with what I came up with. Maybe it's time to revisit that. It isn't tough, it's difficult to prevent someone from advertising their political party in private. Broosking has so far being considered as a bad behaviour, just not illegal, even if I would definitely support such a bill.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 21, 2014 15:04:33 GMT -6
I can't imagine how we could prohibit broosking (except by public officials, like MinImm/NCC staff) without infringing on freedom of speech. I think we'll just have to rely on social disapproval to more broadly deter the practice.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 21, 2014 19:25:37 GMT -6
"Think about it, it is none of the Organic Law's business who the party itself may consult with to make up its mind. It is only the party members' concern." and "S:reu, you can make decisions about your party, but meddle not with the party politics of others." This seems to pretty clearly indicate that you think that parties should be free to include whomever they want and make decisions however they want, even if a party includes non-citizens in those decisions. That's a position with which I am not sure I agree, but it certainly makes sense: if voters want such a party to represent them, then that should be allowed. It's a good idea to say that the Ziu shouldn't mandate a particular way a party should run itself or distribute votes, as a principle. But you are also advocating that parties should only be permitted to choose MCs from a pre-arranged list, on the basis of your belief that this is the better and more representative way. That would seem contradictory - weren't you just saying that "meddle not with the party politics of others?" I don't see how you can simultaneously hold these two positions at once. It seems as though you should either support party freedom to choose how they distribute seats, or else you should recognize the right of the Ziu to mandate aspects of how parties run themselves. Either parties can choose how they operate, as a matter of principle, or not. Big difference is of course that the ziu is a public institution. The composition of the ziu is not an internal party issue, while party membership is.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 21, 2014 21:08:52 GMT -6
I don't see the distinction. On the one hand, it's stating that the public has an interest in how candidates are permitted to be selected, and on the other hand... well, essentially the exact same thing: the public has an interest in how candidates are permitted to be selected. It doesn't make sense to me to say that the public has a compelling interest in how MCs are selected (as in, only the ones pre-arranged are permitted) but that the public does not have a compelling interest in how MCs are selected (as in, foreign citizens or governments may be permitted to choose Talossan MCs).
Don't get me wrong - I think that you can legitimately believe all four of these possible things (parties can choose any MCs they please/parties must choose certain MCs to conform to other needs of the people, parties can choose MCs however they please/parties must choose MCs in a way that conforms to other needs of the people), but I don't see how the same principle can be completely reversed depending on immediate needs.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 3, 2014 5:27:12 GMT -6
It is entirely irrelevant that a party says: "THESE WILL BE MCs"! If they receive no votes, they cannot put forward their MCs and that's why making public a binding list of MCs is the appropriate way for a voter to decide whether they are content with that certain party's members and with the prospect of a certain person becoming MC. If they are happy with the prospective MCs of Party 1, they vote for Party 1. If they, however, are not so happy but would rather like Prosp. MCs from Party 2 to gain seats (and ideally: if they also like what the party stands for), they rather vote for Party 2. It is a perfect way of balancing need and want for the "general population".
And furthermore, I, or anyone else, have no right to dictate the RUMP or ZRT who they may choose to put forward as Prospective MCs, because I am not voting for them and I am neither a member of their party. I have no right, furthermore, to dictate them how they decide who gets to be MC and who may be involved in the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 3, 2014 6:06:02 GMT -6
WHEREAS the Organic Law, and especially, the Covenant of Rights have been designed for the protection of the people against the state and other people; and, WHEREAS it seems to be against any humanitarian reason that the Covenants are only guaranteed to Citizens of Talossa, but not eventual refugees we might get, or tourists, prospectives, or visitors; and, WHEREAS I would like to think that we have no policy of Guantánamobaying non-Talossan citizens when they commit any crime; now
THEREFORE the Ziu approves that the following changes to the Organic Law's Covenant of Rights be commended to the citizenry for ratification:
- THE PREAMBLE, which currently reads: The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to all Talossan citizens, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. These Covenants shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Talossan custom and tradition, and with the aim in mind of preserving and enhancing the ethnic heritage of the Talossan nation and the peace, order, and good government for the Kingdom of Talossa.
shall be amended to read:
The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to every person, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. These Covenants shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Talossan custom and tradition, and with the aim in mind of preserving and enhancing the ethnic heritage of the Talossan nation and the peace, order, and good government for the Kingdom of Talossa.
- THE THIRD COVENANT, which currently reads: Talossans have the right to peaceful assembly whether in private facilities or in the open air, provided that such assembly neither disrupts traffic or legal commercial activity, or unduly inconveniences people. Talossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants.
shall be amended to read:
Every person has the right to peaceful assembly, whether in private facilities or in the open air, provided that such assembly neither disrupts traffic or legal commercial activity, nor unduly inconveniences people. Every person has the right to freely organise any kinds of organisations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organisations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants. However, political parties may only be organised by Talossan citizens, in order to preserve the political power vested in the people of Talossa. Notwithstanding, political parties are subject to their own laws of membership.
- THE FOURTH COVENANT, which currently reads: Under the principle that "A Man's Room is His Kingdom," the right of the people to privacy and security in their persons, homes, papers, correspondence, and property, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. No person may be arrested or detained without a warrant issued by a judge, except in cases of flagrante delicto. No warrants shall be issued except on probable cause, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. The right to privacy for public figures must be balanced by the public's right to know, in matters affecting politics, elections, campaigns, and governing. The intentional withholding of political information which reasonable voters might find helpful, profitable, or informative, violates the public's right to know.
shall be amended to read:
Under the principle that "A Man's Room is His Kingdom," any person's right to privacy and security in their persons, homes, papers, correspondence, and property, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. No person may be arrested or detained without a warrant issued by a judge, except in cases of flagrante delicto. No warrants shall be issued except on probable cause, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. The right to privacy for public figures must be balanced by the public's right to know, in matters affecting politics, elections, campaigns, and governing. The intentional withholding of political information which reasonable voters might find helpful, profitable, or informative, violates the public's right to know.
- THE FIFTH COVENANT, which currently reads: Any person charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to request information on his legal rights. No accused person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life, liberty, or property for the same offence, or without due process of law; nor shall any citizen be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself. Excessive fines, and cruel and bizarre punishments, shall not be inflicted.
shall be amended to read:
Any person charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to request information on his legal rights. No accused person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life, liberty, or property for the same offence, or without due process of law; nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself. Excessive fines, and cruel and bizarre punishments, shall not be inflicted. The death penalty shall never be lawful.
- THE SEVENTH COVENANT, which currently reads: No person shall be found guilty on account of any act or omission, unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Talossan or international law, or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of civilized nations, as interpreted by Talossan courts in line with Talossan traditions and needs.
will be amended to read followingly, because international law does not apply to Talossa and convicting someone in a Talossan court of law because Lala-Land prohibits dancing with your shoes on is not cool:
No person shall be found guilty on account of any act or omission, unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Talossan law, or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of civilized nations, as interpreted by Talossan courts in line with Talossan traditions and needs.
- THE EIGHTH COVENANT, which currently reads: Talossa shall never tax nor purport to tax, unduly burden, outlaw or abridge for its citizens any right to acts of: peaceful assembly; religious worship or affiliation; political speech or expression or affiliation; religious or historical or scientific or philosophical belief; abortion (being the freely conscious ability for a woman to make a determination on the continuation of her pregnancy); consensual sexual activity (between two consenting people of an age of responsibility); contraception; marriage (between consenting adults regardless of their sex, unless they are consanguineous up to the fourth degree of relationship), civil unions (and equivalents); divorce; adoption; advance health care directives; attempted suicide; euthanasia; the reading of any book; and the writing or use of any language. Neither shall any person be made to answer in any Talossan court for the alleged, admitted, or actual violation of any foreign law restricting or denying any right to or forbidding any act enumerated above.
shall be amended to read:
Talossa shall never tax nor purport to tax, unduly burden, outlaw or abridge for any person any right to acts of: peaceful assembly; religious worship or affiliation; political speech or expression or affiliation; religious or historical or scientific or philosophical belief; abortion (being the freely conscious ability for a woman to make a determination on the continuation of her pregnancy); consensual sexual activity (between two consenting people of an age of responsibility); contraception; marriage (between consenting adults regardless of their sex, unless they are consanguineous up to the fourth degree of relationship), civil unions (and equivalents); divorce; adoption; advance health care directives; attempted suicide; euthanasia; the reading of any book; and the writing or use of any language. Neither shall any person be made to answer in any Talossan court for the alleged, admitted, or actual violation of any foreign law restricting or denying any right to or forbidding any act enumerated above.
Uréu q'estadra så: Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun (MC / MRPT)
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 3, 2014 6:14:25 GMT -6
Thoughts? Comments? Wrinkly noses?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 3, 2014 6:43:23 GMT -6
It is entirely irrelevant that a party says: "THESE WILL BE MCs"! If they receive no votes, they cannot put forward their MCs and that's why making public a binding list of MCs is the appropriate way for a voter to decide whether they are content with that certain party's members and with the prospect of a certain person becoming MC. If they are happy with the prospective MCs of Party 1, they vote for Party 1. If they, however, are not so happy but would rather like Prosp. MCs from Party 2 to gain seats (and ideally: if they also like what the party stands for), they rather vote for Party 2. It is a perfect way of balancing need and want for the "general population". And furthermore, I, or anyone else, have no right to dictate the RUMP or ZRT who they may choose to put forward as Prospective MCs, because I am not voting for them and I am neither a member of their party. I have no right, furthermore, to dictate them how they decide who gets to be MC and who may be involved in the decision. Well, of course I understand that you think that ironclad party lists are the "appropriate way" for a party to select MCs, and that you have good reason for thinking that. I just don't understand why you can simultaneously think that (a) the Ziu should regulate the selection of MCs based on what it thinks is the most "appropriate way" and (b) the Ziu has no business regulating the selection of MCs. We're not talking about the merits here, we're talking about how you are asserting in the same breath that the way a party composes itself and selects its MCs is an inviolable right for them to decide and that parties should only pick MCs from an ironclad list. Either we have the right to interfere in a party's management of its seats, or not. I don't see how we can possibly decide that there is a sacred and inviolable right to party self-governance only with respect to things you want to regulate (MCs must come from a list) but not with respect to things you don't want to regulate (non-citizens can choose MCs).
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 3, 2014 8:14:17 GMT -6
What does this word mean : "Guantánamobaying" ?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 3, 2014 8:20:07 GMT -6
Guantánamo Bay is quite self-explanatory, isn't it?
|
|