| Ban on Fascism in the South Pacific |
|
I'd ask for a clearer definition of "hateful ideology" but that is all I've got to say on 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
What is fascism? Is it just “...a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism…” (wiki page for fascism) or is it something more? Just take a look at the Wikipedia page for fascism and you will see varying definitions of what fascism is. What is a hateful ideology? And more importantly who gets to decide what fascism or a hateful ideology is? From reading the proposal it seems like anyone who has border control can just ban people for being a fascist or a member of a hateful ideology. That is problematic because there is no guarantee that all members of the collation will have such actions applied to them equally. That is that one person may allow something and therefore not take action against the said person but another might think differently. Allowing such discretion and disparity deprives members of the equal protection of the law. Moreover, I am uncertain that there will be adequate checks on such broad powers. Furthermore, imagine if the people with border control had and acted on their biases against members because of their views and waited until they said something that they disagree with or could spin as fascist views? Imagine the unjust silencing that could happen by allowing people to just ban others for being subjectively fascist, and with no underlying proof.
Even if we all agree on a definition of fascism, then I would have the following objection. Then what about people who are slightly to the left of fascists? Will they also be subject to bans? And what about the people slightly to the left of them? They too in time will be censored and banned on the grounds of “protecting democracy” or “protecting the community”. Then, anyone who is remotely conservate will be labeled a fascist and will be banned. Eventually, even the centrists will be removed. This cycle will continue until only those who agree with the ruling ideology will be allowed. All dissenters will be labeled fascists. So in the end the law that was once meant to protect democracy will be the very thing that ends it. This is not to say that people who are openly hateful or fascists should be allowed to remain on the forums, we already have ways to deal with those people. I might even be for the proposal if there was some way to appeal the ban (if there is, already please let me know). For those reasons, I’m against this proposal.
If someone is "to the right of fascists", wouldn't that make them even more extremist fascists?
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
(09-20-2020, 07:00 PM)Domais Wrote: What is fascism? Is it just “...a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism…” (wiki page for fascism) or is it something more? Just take a look at the Wikipedia page for fascism and you will see varying definitions of what fascism is. What is a hateful ideology? And more importantly who gets to decide what fascism or a hateful ideology is? From reading the proposal it seems like anyone who has border control can just ban people for being a fascist or a member of a hateful ideology. That is problematic because there is no guarantee that all members of the collation will have such actions applied to them equally. That is that one person may allow something and therefore not take action against the said person but another might think differently. Allowing such discretion and disparity deprives members of the equal protection of the law. Moreover, I am uncertain that there will be adequate checks on such broad powers. Furthermore, imagine if the people with border control had and acted on their biases against members because of their views and waited until they said something that they disagree with or could spin as fascist views? Imagine the unjust silencing that could happen by allowing people to just ban others for being subjectively fascist, and with no underlying proof. In this instance, I believe that the moment someone is supporting an ideology which inherently relies on a sense of superiority/hierarchy (Like, saying that one race or nationality is superior to others) that is when it is actionable. This is inherently what fascism is, relying on the concept of that one nationality being superior to all others and putting action behind that. Often targeting a scapegoat (In the case of a recent ban, communists, for example,) blaming everything on that scapegoat. There is no need for any of that in the halls of our assembly, we are inherently equal and equally worthy of freedom to express ourselves and live our lives. We are free to believe in one way or another. We are free to love or hate each other if it comes to it, it's unreasonable to expect everyone to get along all the time. But, we are NOT free to espouse hateful speech to one another, especially for unchangeable characteristics. It is one thing to hate someone bc you just can't get along with them, the mature thing to do at that point is to politely ignore each other. But it is another thing to be like "I hate all x people bc of x", and it is even worse to say "I hate all x people bc of x so lets kill them all". I would draw the line at the "I hate all x people bc of x" because that's when it gets bad. Especially when x is an unchangeable characteristic, like where someone was born or where they come from or the color of their skin or their sexuality.  Empress of Fire Current Minister of Military Affairs Chair Perch of the Assembly (February to June 2020) SPSF Soldier MoRA Fellow Ambassador to Forest and Lazarus
I don't agree that the term "fascism" or "fascist" should be used since it's too vague a description for creating a ban. It's a constantly moving target that depends upon context and I fear that it's broad enough to be weaponized against people who skirt the edge of violating community standards but are too stupid to realize what they're doing or are just trying to get a rise out of people.
I do not support bigotry, racism, discrimination, or any harmful and hateful behavior or mindset. I firmly believe that everyone should be treated with the utmost respect because communities - whether virtual or real - thrive on heterogeneity. We need to constantly have our beliefs challenged by others. We need to be exposed to new ideas. We need to embrace one another and accept one another so that our strengths can shore up each others' weaknesses. We are stronger together and we obviously have no room for hateful speech, iconography, etc. We shouldn't have to augment something that's already covered by community standards. This would be like tying a string around one finger to remember that you have a string tied around another finger. Тифона «Тифонька» Кузнецова Typhona "Typhonka" Kuznetsova Come and Vacation In Austerager, Pearl of Keylian Ocean! [Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SMUCMn_BQ]
There is so much wrong with this.
First, the focus on facism is ill-advised. Fascism is one of many possible forms of hate. Second, this confuddles the meta and the lore of the game waaaaaaaaaaay too much. By putting this into 4 different documents of our laws, it makes all but impossible to keep these two realms separate. Third, continuing from the second point, as written we would therefore have to ban probably a third of TSP because the nations, in the issues game, represent these very things that are now banned in this draft. This includes possibly even our Delegate! And while you may say "but this is absurd" ... well, if you don't keep the realms separate, this is exactly what happens, and this is what many new players will ask, and will turn others away that don't bother to ask. Fourth, also a continuation of the second, this makes it stupidly easy to coup, 2017-CU-style. Because by not keeping the realms separate, you have therefore empowered other entities to take that kind of action for in-game reasons. Particularly your proposed BC Act 4.3 is horrifying. Fifth, this opens up the possibility of reviewing administrative action through the courts, which is absurd and an appalling prospect. All anybody has to do is claim 4.3 and off to the Court it goes. This is what happens when you don't keep the realms separate. In summary, this is a truly awful proposal that tries to "fix" something by breaking everything else. A better way to approach this would be to amend the Community Standards (this is coming very soon anyway), and add to the laws that administrative reasons allow a banjection. Much simpler, much less violation of the separation of realms, much less atrocious. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(09-21-2020, 10:21 AM)Roavin Wrote: A better way to approach this would be to amend the Community Standards (this is coming very soon anyway), and add to the laws that administrative reasons allow a banjection. Much simpler, much less violation of the separation of realms, much less atrocious. My thoughts exactly
"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011 One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium
In general I agree with the idea of this, but Roavin is correct. There's a reductio ad absurdum that can be made here that would require banning every nation that answers issues (or even spawns into the game) a certain way. And while the chances of that happening are unlikely, in the event that someone decided to, they could do it and would technically have legal grounds to do so.
Also in support of tackling this through the community standards. Witchcraft and Sorcery Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they. (09-21-2020, 10:21 AM)Roavin Wrote: ... Third, continuing from the second point, as written we would therefore have to ban probably a third of TSP because the nations, in the issues game, represent these very things that are now banned in this draft. This includes possibly even our Delegate! And while you may say "but this is absurd" ... well, if you don't keep the realms separate, this is exactly what happens, and this is what many new players will ask, and will turn others away that don't bother to ask. Oh dear ... I was hoping my last re-education campaign had gone unnoticed ... |
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |