Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 06-12-2019, 12:39 PM

It was suggested that we separate out debate over the general idea of going defender from the debate on the actual laws that would be enacted to do it. I'm proposing the following resolution plus an amendment to Article X of the Charter. After reading our laws, Article X is the only language that really needs to be changed. The Military Code is already quite flexible in handling the intricacies of its members participating in other military groups, so I don't feel an amendment there is necessary. The resolution is what declares our values, while the amendment to Article X implements those values by a) giving the military explicit support in defending, b) prohibiting raider missions, and c) providing exceptions for things like antifa and of course declared wars.

Quote:
Resolution on Alignment
Whereas the Coalition of the South Pacific is founded upon dedication to democratic principles, including the right of a community to exist peacefully and free from unprovoked attack;

Whereas our values have a natural affinity with the principles of defending, that being protecting innocent regions from raider attack and liberating those regions under occupation;

Whereas we believe no innocent region should be subjugated against its will, have its residents purged, or be completely destroyed or kept as a trophy of its destruction;

Whereas we believe the general principles of defending do not contradict offensive military operations against hateful regions, or against forces of subjugation and destruction,

Resolved that the Coalition of the South Pacific:

1. Commits itself to upholding and advocating the defender principles of protecting innocent regions and fighting against forces of destruction and oppression.

2. Declares that these principles are a fundamental aspect of our community and culture, and will strive to reflect these principles in our Charter, constitutional laws, and military guidelines, but that the Coalition will as always let our traditions and culture develop naturally in adopting these principles.

3. Considers this resolution a constitutional law, to show our dedication to upholding these principles by considering them a fundamental aspect of our governance.

Amendment to Article X, Section 3 of the Charter Wrote:THE CHARTER OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

..

X. THE MILITARY

...

(3) The military may engage in offensive or defensive operations without fear of political reprisal. However, it may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly. Nor may it destroy innocent regions. It may engage in the destruction of regions with which the Coalition is at war, and regions espousing hateful ideologies.(3) The military will have the support of the Coalition in conducting operations to protect innocent regions from attack and oppression. The military may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly, by majority vote of both chambers. Nor may the military attack, subjugate, purge, destroy, or vandalize any regions, excepting those regions which espouse hateful ideologies and those regions against which the Coalition has declared an official state of war.

(This post was last modified: 07-17-2019, 07:33 AM by Amerion.)

***Tsunamy*** · 06-12-2019, 05:05 PM

I'm not going to try my hand at editing suggestions here, quite yet (although I do have some minor suggestions).

But, before that, can we include some sort of specific ideals involved here? I'm thinking something along the lines of spreading democracy, freedom of speech and press, and protection of minority populations?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Witchcraft and Sorcery · 06-12-2019, 05:38 PM

Yeah, that's gotta be included, but I think that was the goal of the "whereas" clauses of the resolution? Do you mean somewhere else?

I really like the way this looks as a package. I might have some wording suggestions later for the charter amendment, but they'd be minor. I agree on the MC - my amendment was received rather poorly and I was lukewarm on it at best even while writing it. GC having the final say is a pretty solid principle.

Witchcraft and Sorcery

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

***sandaoguo*** · 06-12-2019, 05:59 PM

(06-12-2019, 05:05 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: But, before that, can we include some sort of specific ideals involved here? I'm thinking something along the lines of spreading democracy, freedom of speech and press, and protection of minority populations?

Do you mean in the sense of doing that for other regions when we’re defending against raids or liberating? Some of those things are hard to promote beyond advertising and encouraging people to adopt them, as far as your run of the mill defenses go. But liberations do tend to involve more “region-craft” and we can include those principles for when we help liberate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nat · 06-12-2019, 06:31 PM

Thanks sandaoguo, it looks very nice Smile

May I suggesting adding a clause in the resolution along the lines of:

Option A Wrote:3. Affirms that citizens of the Coalition shall not be discriminated against for their views on the military principles in this resolution.

I know it isn't necessary, but I think it would be good to formally state that military philosophy is not a reason to turn people away from the region or to treat them differently. It is more a statement affirming our welcoming nature.

I am not sure if this suggestion of mine would need something of a disclaimer for military membership itself (I will leave that to the more military-minded people to discuss); such as this:

Option B Wrote:3. Affirms that citizens of the Coalition shall not be discriminated against for their views on the military principles in this resolution, except in regards to their position within the South Pacific Special Forces.

I am happy with either of the options I provided.

Anyway, just a suggestion to make this nicely worded resolution even better Smile

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

***Tsunamy*** · 06-12-2019, 06:46 PM

(06-12-2019, 05:38 PM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: Yeah, that's gotta be included, but I think that was the goal of the "whereas" clauses of the resolution? Do you mean somewhere else?

I really like the way this looks as a package. I might have some wording suggestions later for the charter amendment, but they'd be minor. I agree on the MC - my amendment was received rather poorly and I was lukewarm on it at best even while writing it. GC having the final say is a pretty solid principle.

(06-12-2019, 05:59 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(06-12-2019, 05:05 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: But, before that, can we include some sort of specific ideals involved here? I'm thinking something along the lines of spreading democracy, freedom of speech and press, and protection of minority populations?

Do you mean in the sense of doing that for other regions when we’re defending against raids or liberating? Some of those things are hard to promote beyond advertising and encouraging people to adopt them, as far as your run of the mill defenses go. But liberations do tend to involve more “region-craft” and we can include those principles for when we help liberate.

I'm thinking in the Resolved area, tbh. Maybe as another number.

And yeah, Glen, I think advertising and encouraging it after liberations. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we want to go around "liberating" regions that have dictators, right?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2019, 07:14 PM

Spreading liberty and democracy is something I’d be on board with, if people want to drop the cliched R/D nonsense and declare ourselves committed to bringing lampshades and democracy to all corners of NSGP.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 06-12-2019, 08:17 PM

@Nat: Our bill of rights already protects people’s views: “1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies”

@Tsu: In this context, liberating means specifically breaking a raider military’s hold on a region they’re trying to lock down (and likely refound as a trophy). When these regions are liberated, we would have an opportunity give them advice and whatnot on how to structure their government going forward.

I don’t think anybody (except I guess Bel?) is advocating George Bush-ing the SPSF and forcibly spreading democracy. That would basically be a weird flavor of imperialism, rather than defending Tounge

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2019, 08:22 PM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2019, 08:30 PM

George Bush-ing the SPSF would, at the very least, be original....

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2019, 08:30 PM by Belschaft.)

***Tsunamy*** · 06-12-2019, 10:54 PM

(06-12-2019, 08:17 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: @Tsu: In this context, liberating means specifically breaking a raider military’s hold on a region they’re trying to lock down (and likely refound as a trophy). When these regions are liberated, we would have an opportunity give them advice and whatnot on how to structure their government going forward.

I don’t think anybody (except I guess Bel?) is advocating George Bush-ing the SPSF and forcibly spreading democracy. That would basically be a weird flavor of imperialism, rather than defending

I'm not, not calling for a George Bush style system, but yeah. I mean, I'm assuming we're not going to "liberate" a government and give to a different (yet non-raider) strongman. Correct?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]