The One More Step Toward (Hopefully) Ending the Bug Wars Act

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Of course, the courts are here to see appeals to any such decision if it is believed to be inOrganic.

[Óïn Ursüm]

The blacklist was originally conceived to appease those who wanted some form of limitation on micronations while avoiding a blanket ban.

The reason for the generality of the blacklist is to avoid the seeming arbitrariness of only outlawing apparently harmless groups which simply happen to call their members 'citizens', and making legislative provision concerning very specific things such as micronational elections and honourary citizenship.

The concerns about the blacklist are justified, but I think if the wording is tweaked a bit, and with the courts and the Covenants, citizens will be protected in their free and peaceful assembly.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, the answer for those of cxhn. Prevuost's persuasion would be to simply repeal all the micronational laws and replace them with nothing. It's a defensible suggestion, although not one I agree with.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Since Live and Let Live failed on the September Clark, I intend to clark this bill in October. Any final suggestions for amendments?

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

I'd strike " or attempts to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom of Talossa" from clause 2. But can't this and the ZRT bill be amalgamated? It would be unfortunate if both passed.

[Glüc da Dhi]

I probably like the ZRT proposals better than this act, mostly because this gives the government the opportunity to blacklist nations without the consent of the ziu. The potential reasons for blacklisting are a bit vague, especially the sentence mentioned by Senator Anglatzarâ. (if some citizen holding an "office" in a "micronation" votes in Talossa, can this be construed as an attempt of that micronation to interfere with Talossan domestic policy?) This seems to make it rather easy for two people to blacklist micronations for political persons (for example to get rid of someone they dont like).

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Sept 23, 2013 10:18:56 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

I'd strike " or attempts to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom of Talossa" from clause 2. But can't this and the ZRT bill be amalgamated? It would be unfortunate if both passed.

The ZRT bill was hoppered too late to make the October Clark, so if this bill fails the ZRT one can have a go in November. As for the language "attempts to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom of Talossa", I was thinking of situations where a foreign group tries to foment insurrection or conspires to unlawfully overthrow the Talossan government, not cases where individual members of the foreign group who are also Talossan citizens exercise their rights as citizens to lawfully participate in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom. But perhaps the language in question could be dropped on the theory that the kinds of actions I was thinking of would be considered hostile acts or demonstrations of hostile intent under international law anyways.

Sept 23, 2013 13:51:21 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I probably like the ZRT proposals better than this act, mostly because this gives the government the opportunity to blacklist nations without the consent of the ziu.

I might be open to requiring a Ziu vote to blacklist, but in that case there's no real point in writing criteria for blacklisting into the law. The Ziu bill adding a micronation to the blacklist would be just as much law as this act, and could override any criteria written into this act. Whether the reasons for blacklisting are sufficient could be debated in the Ziu at the time a blacklisting proposal is made. The only reason to purport to write binding criteria for blacklisting into the law is if the blacklisting decision is made at a level below the Ziu, and the law must provide guidance to limit the discretion of the officials charged with making the decision.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Sept 24, 2013 3:39:35 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Sept 23, 2013 10:18:56 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

I'd strike " or attempts to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom of Talossa" from clause 2. But can't this and the ZRT bill be amalgamated? It would be unfortunate if both passed.

The ZRT bill was hoppered too late to make the October Clark, so if this bill fails the ZRT one can have a go in November. As for the language "attempts to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom of Talossa", I was thinking of situations where a foreign group tries to foment insurrection or conspires to unlawfully overthrow the Talossan government, not cases where individual members of the foreign group who are also Talossan citizens exercise their rights as citizens to lawfully participate in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom. But perhaps the language in question could be dropped on the theory that the kinds of actions I was thinking of would be considered hostile acts or demonstrations of hostile intent under international law anyways.

Sept 23, 2013 13:51:21 GMT -6 Glüc da Dhi said:

I probably like the ZRT proposals better than this act, mostly because this gives the government the opportunity to blacklist nations without the consent of the ziu.

I might be open to requiring a Ziu vote to blacklist, but in that case there's no real point in writing criteria for blacklisting into the law. The Ziu bill adding a micronation to the blacklist would be just as much law as this act, and could override any criteria written into this act. Whether the reasons for blacklisting are sufficient could be debated in the Ziu at the time a blacklisting proposal is made. The only reason to purport to write binding criteria for blacklisting into the law is if the blacklisting decision is made at a level below the Ziu, and the law must provide guidance to limit the discretion of the officials charged with making the decision.

If you provide guidelines for what should merit a blacklisting, a judge could then rule a blacklisting as being unlawful, surely? Though that might require the enshrining of blacklisting laws into the OrgLaw which isn't necessarily a good idea.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Sept 24, 2013 10:27:36 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

If you provide guidelines for what should merit a blacklisting, a judge could then rule a blacklisting as being unlawful, surely? Though that might require the enshrining of blacklisting laws into the OrgLaw which isn't necessarily a good idea.

That would amount to the Ziu restraining a future Ziu, which cannot happen. It would indeed mean that the blacklisting procedure would have to be made an organic imperative, if those principles were important, CCX.

I disagree with you, Cresti, though, on the idea that such principles wouldn't matter. They would still be important and should be included as a Schelling point - a natural focus for debate - even if they weren't binding. If we're going to have a blacklist, then it's a good idea to make public the general principles involved, even if they cannot be binding.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Good points. I have made a couple of changes to the draft based on the discussion here.

[Glüc da Dhi]

After the changes made, I am certain that I support this act and will vote in favour. I would like to be added as a cosponsor. (I'm also listed as a cosponsor on one of the ZRT sponsored acts on this issue, but I realise that this act can be proposed a month earlier and if it passes, the others will probably no longer be neccesary)

[Lüc da Schir]

I like the changes you've made, Cresti. Please add me as a cosponsor.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Cosponsors added!

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Could you add me as a co-sponsor please?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Done, and gladly.