Uni Draft - Prohibited Regions and Organisations

[Unibot]

This is my revised proposal of Belschaft's draft. Please discuss.

 

Article 9: Prohibited Regions and Organisations

1. The Cabinet and/or CSS may request the Assembly designate foreign regions and organisations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Prohibited Groups. Such requests must be accompanied with a report detailing those activities that meet the definitions of hostility detailed in clause 2 of this Article.
2. For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organisations that (1) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; (2) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or (3) groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations.
3. For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement, provided the target-region is not an ally or a region that The South Pacific is at war with, shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.
4. Membership in a designated Prohibited  Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of citizenship, following a 7 day grace period to allow renunciation of membership in the Prohibited  Group. The seven days grace period begins immediately after the notification of the citizen in question that they are a member of a Prohibited Group by the Vice Delegate or a member of the CSS.
5. Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited  Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited  Group to the Appellate Court within 7 days of their citizenship being revoked. The Appellate Court shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited  Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited  Group at the time of citizenship revocation.
6. Applicants for citizenship who are members of a designated Prohibited  Group shall not be granted citizenship unless they renounce membership in the Prohibited  Group.
7. Membership in a designated Prohibited  Group does not constitute a criminal offence; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.
8. Regions at war with The South Pacific or with which The South Pacific is at war shall be automatically considered Prohibited Groups. The Assembly may further designate Prohibited Groups via a vote with a 60% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Prohibited Group designation via a vote with a 60% majority in favor.
9. The following regions and organisations are deemed Prohibited  Groups within The South Pacific: The Greater German Reich, Gatesville Inc.
10. The Chair of the Assembly shall update clause 9 of this Article to reflect The South Pacific's current Prohibited Groups.

[Cormac]

This... seems reasonable. Am I missing something, or is it actually reasonable? 

 

Edit: I see that I did miss some things, but this still seems reasonable.

 

Those arguing that defense against NSA raids should ever constitute "sabotage" shouldn't be making that argument -- whether a region or organization defends against NSA raids once, twice, ten times, or a hundred times. Unibot and Glen-Rhodes are absolutely right that if The South Pacific is going to be an independent region that doesn't descend into the exclusionary politics of ideological extremism, it's going to have to accommodate people of diverse military backgrounds and alignments. Including raiders, including defenders, including other independents, including neutrals. I'm a raider, myself, and I find it odd and more than a little bit disturbing that there are those here who would punish defense against NSA raids but nobody has brought up invasion of TSP's treaty allies or other friendly regions and ejection of NSA forces trying to liberate those regions. Even as a raider, that seems like a far more hostile act to me than defending against a raid of an arbitrary founderless region.

 

Other independent regions, like Europeia, don't punish their citizens for being on opposite sides of military engagements. We have signed treaties allowing our allies to be on opposite sides of military engagements without interpreting that as a hostile act. We should be at least as willing to extend that right to our own citizens as we are to other regions with which we make alliances, and those arguing otherwise are now being just as extreme as Unibot has at times been through the course of this debate. Get a grip and learn to compromise when compromise is possible. If I'm having to be the voice of reason and moderation, something is very wrong.

 

I support Unibot's draft, including clause 3, as a reasonable compromise. The only thing I would possibly add is an exemption that still allows defense against invasions of regions with which TSP is at war, or invasion of treaty allies and ejection of TSP forces attempting to liberate those allies, to be considered hostile acts since more is at stake in these cases and both have firm legal foundations (a war declaration for the former, a treaty for the latter).

[Farengeto]

This... seems reasonable. Am I missing something, or is it actually reasonable? 

Oh good, I though I was missing something too.  :lol:

[Rebel-topia]

...
5. Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited Group to the Supreme Court within 14 days of their citizenship being revoked. The Supreme Court shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited  Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited  Group at the time of citizenship revocation.

I think this needs to be 7 days from the removal of citizenship. Thats a total of 14 days from them being notified. They dont need 14 days from removal. I think 7 is more than enough time.

[Belschaft]

Clause three is rather more significant than it looks Cormac, in that it declares that no group can be deemed hostile for opposing NSA operations, regardless of the context of such. Nevertheless, it's something I'm willing to concede in return for broad support for Article 9. A couple of edits need to be made however to bring Article 9 into line with the judicial reform that is currently being processed;

 

 

Article 9: Prohibited Regions and Organisations

<ol class="bbc bbcol decimal">[*]The Cabinet and/or CSS may request the Assembly designate foreign regions and organisations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Prohibited Groups. Such requests must be accompanied with a report detailing those activities that meet the definitions of hostility detailed in clause 2 of this Article.
[*]For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organisations that (1) have declared war on The South Pacific; (2) The South Pacific has declared war on; (3) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; (4) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or (5) groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations.
[*]For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement shall not constitute a sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.
[*]Membership in a designated Prohibited  Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of citizenship, following a 7 day grace period to allow renunciation of membership in the Prohibited  Group. The seven days grace period begins immediately after the notification of the citizen in question that they are a member of a Prohibited Group by the Vice Delegate or a member of the CSS.
[*]Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited  Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited  Group to the Appellate Court
within 7 days of their citizenship being revoked. The Appellate Court
 shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited  Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited  Group at the time of citizenship revocation.
[*]Applicants for citizenship who are members of a designated Prohibited  Group shall not be granted citizenship unless they renounce membership in the Prohibited  Group.
[*]Membership in a designated Prohibited  Group does not constitute a criminal offence; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.
[*]Regions at war with The South Pacific shall be automatically considered Prohibited Groups. The Assembly may further designate Prohibited Groups via a vote with a 60% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Prohibited Group designation via a vote with a 60% majority in favor.
[*]The following regions and organisations are deemed Prohibited  Groups within The South Pacific: The Greater German Reich, Gatesville Inc.
[*]The Chair of the Assembly shall update clause 9 of this Article following any declaration of war by or against The South Pacific or following designation of a Prohibited  Group.
</ol>

 

Anyway, if there are no further objections, I would like to motion to vote.

[Rebel-topia]

Can we have more than 5 minutes of discussion on a bill, Bels? I understand your want to get this through, but, come on!

[Belschaft]

I said if there are no further objections

[Cormac]

I would like to hold off and see what Unibot and others think of this suggestion:

 

The only thing I would possibly add is an exemption that still allows defense against invasions of regions with which TSP is at war, or invasion of treaty allies and ejection of TSP forces attempting to liberate those allies, to be considered hostile acts since more is at stake in these cases and both have firm legal foundations (a war declaration for the former, a treaty for the latter).

 

I think this could allow a bit more flexibility by allowing the Assembly to consider certain, legally objective types of military engagement hostile.

[Hileville]

Overall I like this draft much better.  I would also support adding Cormac's suggestion.

[Belschaft]

"For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement where The South Pacific is not engaging a region it is at war with or providing support to a treatied ally shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations."?

[Unibot]

"For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement where The South Pacific is not engaging a region it is at war with or providing support to a treatied ally shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations."?

I believe that technically allows an invader to still invade an ally of ours (so long as we're not supporting them at the time of invasion).

How'll about...

For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement, provided the target-region is not an ally or a region that The South Pacific is at war with, shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.

[Escade]

Belschaft, take a deep breath and allow others to discuss.  

 

I agree with Cormac's points.  TSP is independent. The NSA exists to serve the interests of TSPers and introduce them to military GP. It's broad mission ideology is that it is against hate organizations and regions such as Nazis's.  That's the main ideology - not anti or pro raider\defender. And I think its success this term has come from SB's willingness to engage in a variety of missions.

 

Anything that would narrow down citizens rights to enjoy the gameplay aspects or limit citizenship based on arbitrary reasons is troubling.

 

It's a different case as outlined if a TSPer is aiding someone who is attempting to coup us which is clearly treason. Otherwise, enjoy R\D. 

[Belschaft]

That language would be fine Uni.

 

---

 

Since when did citizens have the right to actively work against this regions foreign and military policy? I'm willing to compromise on the point, but the idea that we should approve of - never mind welcome - citizens fighting against TSP as part of foreign groups is absurd.

[Sandaoguo]

Perhaps it's just never come up before? I have always assumed that we are allowed to go against the NSA, because your average military mission is done for fun. Like I said in the other thread, there's a big difference between helping a region with which we're at war, and simply going against the NSA on an average mission.

[Belschaft]

It hasn't come up since... 2012? Whenever the last time Unibot was a citizen, and ordered UDL to oppose a NSA led support mission in WZ-Airspace.

[Unibot]

The draft has been updated with the wording I proposed in conjunction with Cormac and Bel's suggestions (plus Bel's appellate court suggestion and Rebel's 7 day suggestion).

I do think we should keep the discussion open some more and see what other citizens think -- we've rushed this to vote a few times now, let's make sure we've got a broader consensus this time.

[Unibot]

The Chair of the Assembly shall update clause 9 of this Article following
any declaration of war by or against The South Pacific or following
designation of a Prohibited  Group.
 

 

Technically this wording only allows the speaker to update Clause 9 if war has been declared, but not if it has been receded. It also has a grammar error. I've replaced this clause with an alternative:

 

The Chair of the Assembly shall update clause 9 of this Article to reflect The South Pacific's current Prohibited Groups.
 

 

I don't think it's necessary to specific the war declaration process, so this clause should act as a broader "update the damn thing" clause that we want it to be.

[Unibot]

1. For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organisations that (1) have declared war on The South Pacific; (2) The South Pacific has declared war on;
   (3) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; (4) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or (5) groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations.

I think we could cut down the length of the bill by removing the blue section - war declarations would already prohibit groups automatically.

[Cormac]

I'm fine with Unibot's new language in clause 3.

 

I also agree with the new language for clause 10, and was just about to note that the previous language didn't account for repeal of war declarations. Glad we fixed that.

 

I'm fine with removal of the language from clause 1 that Unibot has suggested, but clause 8 then needs to be amended to read "Regions at war with The South Pacific or with which The South Pacific is at war..." because a region at war with us =/= a region with which we are at war, necessarily. See, for reference, the TNI and LKE wars against the FRA, which the FRA does not acknowledge and has not reciprocated. It's entirely possible for us to declare war against another region and that region not to declare war in return, in which case they would not be at war with us, but we would be at war with them.

 

In fact, unless I've missed it -- entirely possible -- neither GGR nor Gatesville Inc ever declared war against us in response to our war declarations.

[Unibot]

Alrighty, I've made that edit.

[Belschaft]

I don't see any destructive inserts in the new draft, and as such am happy to sign off on it. I believe we have a compromise we are all happy with.

[Belschaft]

Motion to vote.

[Hileville]

Second

[Unibot]

Thirded unnecessarily.

[Punk D]

I didn't have much of an issue with the first or second drafts of this bill. I find it highly unlikely this body will designate any hostile group hostile without consideration. 

 

In other words, I have faith in the Assembly. 

 

with that in mind, I also support this version of the bill and will make d--m sure to be present during the actual vote.