I fully disagree with this. As I've never been a supporter or political parties the goal of this act was to make a policy in order to make sure any political parties were treated fairly and, additionally, not be taking activity offsite.

Repealing something like this is tossing the responsibility of forum creation (and determination of who should have one) back to the admins, which is unacceptable.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I fully disagree with this. As I've never been a supporter or political parties the goal of this act was to make a policy in order to make sure any political parties were treated fairly and, additionally, not be taking activity offsite.

Repealing something like this is tossing the responsibility of forum creation (and determination of who should have one) back to the admins, which is unacceptable.

I appreciate your point. However, I think it is highly unlikely that political parties will once again flourish, at least, not in the immediate future; by which time, I hope to have another set of laws which will handle such matters.

Reply

I fully disagree with this. As I've never been a supporter or political parties the goal of this act was to make a policy in order to make sure any political parties were treated fairly and, additionally, not be taking activity offsite.

Repealing something like this is tossing the responsibility of forum creation (and determination of who should have one) back to the admins, which is unacceptable.

I appreciate your point. However, I think it is highly unlikely that political parties will once again flourish, at least, not in the immediate future; by which time, I hope to have another set of laws which will handle such matters.  

... like what? I mean, what type of law do you think would better regulate who can request forums and who admins should respond to?

Frankly, the idea of having laws — and a government that continues into perpetuity — is so we don't have to continually fight the same battles. It's fine that you don't see the need for this law right now, but it was debated and passed because it was a problem in the not very distant past. There's a lot of statutes that don't get used often; that doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

In any case, in the future when a group of citizens requests a forum, I'll be sure to point them to this vote.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

By that logic, why shouldn't newspapers and other types of associations get their own regulatory laws too? What makes parties special?

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

Reply

By that logic, why shouldn't newspapers and other types of associations get their own regulatory laws too? What makes parties special?

Perhaps they should. Foreign powers will never be able to interfere with our laws if we do not know the laws ourselves!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

Reply

... like what? I mean, what type of law do you think would better regulate who can request forums and who admins should respond to?

On reflection, a law may not be the most logical way to approach this considering the forums fall squarely within the purview of OOC management. A note or policy in the Operations Center would be, in my opinion, more appropriate.

Frankly, the idea of having laws — and a government that continues into perpetuity — is so we don't have to continually fight the same battles. It's fine that you don't see the need for this law right now, but it was debated and passed because it was a problem in the not very distant past. There's a lot of statutes that don't get used often; that doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

I don't believe laws once written should remain on the books for eternity. Having reviewed the MATT-DUCK archive, I believe it is only the Political Parties Act which has no relevant function; an argument can perhaps be made for the Holidays Act but in that case, it is more so cultural than political.

Reply

There's a lot of statutes that don't get used often; that doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

I generally agree with Tsu here.

Although there is cultural reticence towards this act. This is not in itself reason to remove it.

I fully disagree with this. As I've never been a supporter or political parties the goal of this act was to make a policy in order to make sure any political parties were treated fairly and, additionally, not be taking activity offsite.

Repealing something like this is tossing the responsibility of forum creation (and determination of who should have one) back to the admins, which is unacceptable.

I don't believe laws once written should remain on the books for eternity. Having reviewed the MATT-DUCK archive, I believe it is only the Political Parties Act which has no relevant function; an argument can perhaps be made for the Holidays Act but in that case, it is more so cultural than political.

I'm okay with reviews of the legislation and the removal of unnecessary, duplicate or outdated laws.l (e.g. due to technological advancement). However, this law in itself is none of those.

This is because, I consider at present,

1. Without the law, there is no ability under the Charter or any other legislation to for a right to political assembly, which may lead to questions as to the validity of such groupings.
2. Whilst I would acknowledge, in relation to one above, assembly is a right of citizens: there could be cause to argue that any 'political' grouping, is an attempt to subvert the coalition without the above law. There is no other legislation or procedure available to allow for like minded individuals to group, as far as I can see.
3. This would therefore require the Court to determine which groupings were legitimate political groupings and those which were working as internal dissidents, which as far as I can tell from ORCS hasn't been judged before.
4. Given the judicial act limits the ability of the Court to only look at the powers within its control, the lack of legislation, if the act were repealed, therefore places additional unchecked powers in the hands of the few in relation to legitimate groupings and what is acceptable. (Obviously illegitimate groupings would be illegitimate). Thereby potentially leading to the an imbalance of power which could be difficult to properly rectify.
5. There appears to be no other mechanism to allow the charters right of (general) assembly for groups of individuals to gather in one place within the forums - I.e. through the creation of pages/threads or areas for discussion.

At the moment, the selfishness of Adrimal General chair is the most convincing argument I've seen and again, and whilst I could be all for allowing our chair to repeal on compassionate grounds, that in itself isn't a reason for repeal - in my eyes.

Perhaps, we should leave it as is, it may become pertinent in the future.


Finally...
The holidays act is actually a useful tool for MORA and in recognition of important events. That one should be kept

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

Reply

It appears that a major argument is that if the PPA is repealed, then if someone did want to make a political party/assembly, they would not have legislation backing them up. I suggest repealing the PPA and replacing it with an amendment to the Charter, ideally in Section III. This is my (very flawed) proposal:

THE CHARTER OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
...
III. RIGHTS AND FREEDOMSRecognizing the democratic rights and freedoms of all members of the Coalition.

(1) All members of the South Pacific will enjoy the freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, and the press, limited only by reasonable moderation policies.

(2) All members of the South Pacific are entitled to the right to form political assemblies and may freely participate in electoral and legislative efforts without undue or arbitrary government interference

(2) (3) The right to a fair trial and defense against criminal accusations will not be abridged. No member may be subject to any bill of attainder, be tried for the same crime more than once, or be tried ex post facto.

(3) (4) No member, who had joined the region in good faith, may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law.

(4) (5) No member may be denied the right to vote or hold office, unless prohibited by constitutional law.

(5) (6) No law may be passed by the Assembly that directly affects the activities of the in-game community without the consent of the in-game community.

(6) (7) The High Court may strike down any general law or action that violates any right or freedom found in this Charter.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

(This post was last modified: 07-18-2019, 01:58 AM by The Sakhalinsk Empire.)

Reply

If we explicitly allow the formation of parties without the laws to regulate them, that's worse than not explicitly allowing them at all, IMO.

I think Tsu and Beepee have convinced me of the need to keep legislation like this on the books.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

Why is it worse? I still don’t understand this argument that things will worsen if, for some reasons, parties aren’t explicitly allowed to have a subforum.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

Reply