| Ideals and Principles |
I think some people are concerned that this could somehow be interpreted to prevent people from advocating the pursuance of policies that lean one way or another, thereby effectively taking the region to the opposite direction.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I'm really not sure how any reasonable person could reach that conclusion Kris, considering that it makes specific reference to the establishment of law and only to the establishment of law. But....
Quote:5. Pluralism; that this region seeks to remain categorically open to all ideas and welcoming of all who peacefully reside within it, and as such the region shall make no law respecting the establishment of any form of ideology in any regard, whilst in no way restricting the right of individuals to advocate for any policy or action they so wish and to seek election on such basis. Clear enough? You can advocate for an Independent SPSF and seek election on as MoMA on such basis. You can't write a law saying TSP is Independent. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
It's important to keep in mind that many are also taking into account the context of the original debate and the alignment discussions in 2014. Their concerns make more sense if you consider that.
I'm just saying what I see, in any case. I'm not necessarily for or against your bill. :) Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (03-02-2017, 04:21 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I don't think anyone here doesn't see how transparent this is, where we have Defenders and only Defenders professing that they don't want to to change TSP's culture by imposing their ideology on the region, they just don't want the Charter to prohibit them from doing that. This is why I don't want this legislation, or even this debate. You're already starting the demonization of defenders as disloyal to the South Pacific and implying, if not outright stating, that defenders are pursuing a defender agenda against the interests of the South Pacific, just for disagreeing with this legislation. If this legislation passes, that demonization will only intensify as you accuse defenders of violating the South Pacific's "pluralistic" values, and take the Cabinet or SPSF to court whenever you think you might be able to throw out a legal argument that could stick. Are we really supposed to believe it's an accident that the SPSF is currently leaning defender, by democratic choice, and now you're resurrecting an attempt to codify independence by calling it "pluralism"? It seems much more likely that you're doing it because you don't like the SPSF's current direction and you think this will help you undermine it, whether the SPSF's soldiers or even a majority in the Assembly like it or not. The South Pacific doesn't need this legislation. The South Pacific doesn't need this argument every few months. There is already a consensus in regard to this issue, and despite your attempts to resurrect the subversive defender bogeyman in order to breathe new life into independence, there is no defender proposing adoption of a defender alignment for either the South Pacific overall or the SPSF specifically. There is no conceivable reason for this legislation except to use it as a political and probably a legal weapon to demonize and silence defenders, and reverse the democratically chosen direction of the SPSF. You accuse defenders of hoping to alter the status quo in favor of defending without any evidence -- because there isn't any, because it isn't happening -- when really you're the only one who is seeking to upend the current, well established and well regarded consensus, and restart alignment arguments few people, if anyone, want. No thanks. There is no problem occurring now or in the recent past that needs this "solution." You're right, there are very few people here who don't see how transparent this is. Just not in the way you're attempting to frame it.
For the sake of Cormac, I will respost the proposed language, again;
Quote:5. Pluralism; that this region seeks to remain categorically open to all ideas and welcoming of all who peacefully reside within it, and as such the region shall make no law respecting the establishment of any form of ideology in any regard, whilst in no way restricting the right of individuals to advocate for any policy or action they so wish and to seek election on such basis. Please continue to speculate about my "motivations" whilst ignoring the content of the proposed legislation. Obviously "whilst in no way restricting the right of individuals to advocate for any policy or action they so wish and to seek election on such basis" actually means the opposite of what it says. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (03-02-2017, 06:50 PM)Belschaft Wrote: For the sake of Cormac, I will respost the proposed language, again; There are still ways that language can be legally weaponized. Sure, anyone can advocate policy, but can they implement it? Or will you take them to court and argue that implementation of such policy is the equivalent of making law respecting the establishment of an ideology and thus violates the Charter? There have already been (absurd) references to the First Amendment in the United States, so you should well know that despite the First Amendment reading "Congress shall make no law...", it has been interpreted to also restrain executive policy that would have the same effect. In other words, there is every possibility of this being weaponized to force independence or neutrality upon the SPSF, with the right legal argument and a receptive court considering it. Regardless of the potential for legal weaponization, you have not addressed the other, equal concern I've raised, which is the use of this legislation as a political weapon. You will be able to continually point to your definition of "pluralism" as the law and argue that the majority agrees with you when you say that defenders are disloyal subversives who don't have the interests of the South Pacific at heart, and even a democratic choice for the SPSF to lean defender is inconsistent with "pluralism," violates "minority rights," and contradicts the spirit of the Charter. I think this political weaponization is what you're more interested in, not that I think you'll pass up the opportunity to legally weaponize this legislation if presented with an opportunity to do so. Again, there is no existing problem that needs solved by this legislation. Nobody is pushing for the South Pacific or the SPSF to adopt any alignment, unless your not-so-subtle push for independence or neutrality through the back door counts. Everyone else seems comfortable with deciding this at the proverbial ballot box during each election cycle. Let's not shift to deciding it in court or being battered over the head with false appeals to legislated "pluralism" whenever a candidate for office advocates policy you don't like. Voters -- all of them, not just those who prefer independence or neutrality -- can decide if foreign policy and military policy platforms are consistent with the values of the South Pacific, they don't need this legislation to do it for them.
And this legislation is designed to ensure that voters continue to "decide this at the proverbial ballot box during each election cycle", by expressly prohibiting the establishment of laws that would remove that ability and establish an ideology. It prevents the conversion of a temporary majority into an institutional bias.
I mean, the law specifically protects the right of individuals to do what you're claiming I'm seeking to attack. You claimed I wanted to use this as a political weapon against defenders, so I added "whilst in no way restricting the right of individuals to advocate for any policy or action they so wish and to seek election on such basis". Now you say that isn't sufficient; I'm not sure how it's insufficient, but, in my continuing efforts to address these absurdities.... Quote:5. Pluralism; that this region seeks to remain categorically open to all ideas and welcoming of all who peacefully reside within it, and as such the region shall make no law respecting the establishment of any form of ideology in any regard, whilst in no way restricting the right of individuals to advocate for any policy or action they so wish and to seek election on such basis, or to enact such policy or action if elected to office. Happy yet? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (03-02-2017, 07:29 PM)Belschaft Wrote:Quote:5. Pluralism; that this region seeks to remain categorically open to all ideas and welcoming of all who peacefully reside within it, and as such the region shall make no law respecting the establishment of any form of ideology in any regard, whilst in no way restricting the right of individuals to advocate for any policy or action they so wish and to seek election on such basis, or to enact such policy or action if elected to office. No, because you're continuing to ignore my points about political weaponization, which tells me I've hit the nail on the head there. There's no way you can alter the language, except going with the alternative language I previously offered or some very similar language, that will prompt me to vote for this. Sorry.
So, the only way you'd support a clause committing TSP to pluralism is if it doesn't contain any active language actually doing that? You want an expression of "belief" rather than something with legal effect?
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
It seems hypocritical that we call ourselves a welcoming region with this much anger against co-existance and welcomeness that is pluralism. No one forcing each other's ideology on the other.
Do we want TSP to be the welcoming and diverse region it has been since its creation? Or do we want hatred and fighting? We must commit ourselves to pluralism. It is one of the values of a true welcoming community. Is that not what we are? Where people, regardless of ideology, can flourish? Why not leave a testament to that ever-eternal and elegantly beautiful fundamental ideal?
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |