Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 03-01-2017, 06:37 PM

A couple of years ago I attempted to summarise the fundamental ideals and principles of TSP, upon which our region is based and operates on. In the end it fell just short of the 75% super-majority required, but I still like the idea and would like to bring it back up. Bellow is a modified version of the old draft, which I still think reflects TSP very well.

Quote:I. FUNDAMENTAL IDEALS AND PRINCIPLES

Defining the fundamental and immutable ideals and principles of The Coalition of The South Pacific

1. Democracy; that the people, represented in their Assembly, are sovereign in all matters and have the sole right and power to determine their own constitution, laws and officials; that all rights and duties stem from this sovereignty and that they alone have the right to end or alter the compact that is this Charter.

2. Liberty; that all posses the inherent liberty to act, and speak, and think as they do wish so far as it does not infringe upon the liberty of others or impugn upon the safety of the region, in accordance with those rights and restrictions established by law.

3. Equality; that all are equal before the law, shall bear equal rights and liberties, and that those officials elected or appointed are no more than first amongst equals, and for such time only as their term of office lasts.

4. Tolerance; that all are entitled to the dignity of respect, despite race or sex or faith or creed, and thus the region shall establish no preference in favour of one or discriminate against another, nor allow any harassment or discrimination on such basis.

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 an establishment of ideology in any regard.

Looking for opinions and input as ever.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Omega · 03-01-2017, 07:28 PM

I like this a lot actually. I really really like this.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

***Roavin*** · 03-01-2017, 07:44 PM

What's the point of having this? The presumably purposed normative aspects are already in our laws.

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-01-2017, 07:45 PM

This is the debate on the original version of this proposal, in case anyone finds it useful for their own consideration.

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

Omega · 03-01-2017, 07:51 PM

What happened to the independent part?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

**Belschaft** · 03-01-2017, 07:55 PM

@Roavin; These principles and ideals are already reflected in our laws, because they're genuinely our fundamental principles and ideals. I just like the idea of a "We, the people..." style statement which we can point to.

@Omega; I took it out to avoid fights and/or controversy. I have no interest in starting another R/D "culture war".

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 03-01-2017, 08:26 PM

The whole thing failed last time because the fifth article sought specifically to prevent the region from ever declaring an alignment in R/D that wasn't "Independence." Seems to be doing the same thing.

Overall, though, seems wholly pointless. There's no "law" there, but it will be a recurring bludgeon used in courts, I presume. What sentiment here isn't already covered in our Rights & Freedoms in the Charter?

***Roavin*** · 03-01-2017, 08:30 PM

(03-01-2017, 07:55 PM)Belschaft Wrote: @Roavin; These principles and ideals are already reflected in our laws, because they're genuinely our fundamental principles and ideals. I just like the idea of a "We, the people..." style statement which we can point to.

Okay, fair enough. Still don't see the point but I suppose something like this wouldn't hurt so long as it's explicitly informative and not normative.

(03-01-2017, 07:55 PM)Belschaft Wrote: @Omega; I took it out to avoid fights and/or controversy. I have no interest in starting another R/D "culture war".

Actually, not really. You just rephrased it.

Old	New
Independence; that ours is an independent region, devoid of any prescribed military ideology or alignment, and that our officials shall act on such basis.	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 an establishment of ideology in any regard.

It's still semantically almost the same.

**Belschaft** · 03-01-2017, 08:36 PM

Last time a version of this was supported by 71% of voting citizens, just short of the required 75% supermajorty, so I'd reject the idea that the fifth article was a problem; the proposal received the support of a clear majority of the Assembly, just not a large enough majority. I'm sure that if I'd brought the issue up week after week, eventually it would have received the required number of votes.

I think most everyone would agree with the current status-quo of TSP not having any regional idealogy and just letting the SPSF evolve organically, based upon who the MoMA is and what the membership wants to do. I don't see how establishing that it's against what TSP stands for to establish a regional ideology is at all controversial, unless people do want to establish a regional ideology?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 03-01-2017, 08:37 PM

It was a problem for those who voted against, causing the motion to fail, yes.

As for "evolving organically" -- this would prevent the SPSF from evolving beyond some line in the sand, when you or someone else says the SPSF is violating Article 5.

(This post was last modified: 03-01-2017, 08:38 PM by sandaoguo.)