Fundamental Freedoms

[Unibot]

To include as an addition to the <em class='bbc'>Charter</em>.

<strong class='bbc'>Article 3 – Fundamental Freedoms</strong>



1. All residents of the South Pacific, citizen or not, shall be entitled these following fundamental freedoms that shall form the basis of the limitations of the South Pacific government and moreover, the opportunity and empowerment of all residents that is to be protected and promoted by the most enduring legal codification available to this Coalition:

[*:2b0e4j4y] The freedom of conscience.



[*:2b0e4j4y] The freedom of thought, belief and opinion.



[*:2b0e4j4y] The freedom of expression, including freedom of the press notwithstanding expression deemed unjustifiable and injurious to the security of the person or the security of the region esp. the provisions laid out in the "Three Warnings Law" and treasonous behavior.



[*:2b0e4j4y] The freedom of peaceful assembly; and



[*:2b0e4j4y] The freedom of association.

[Hileville]

Looks good to me.

[Gandallfia]

Does it not need an exceptions clause, ie. a sentence stating that these freedoms are valid except where they contravene other laws, rules and regulations (mainly treasonable, offensive and defamation I'm thinking of)?

[Rebel-topia]

I think so, Gand. Better to have it written, so someone doesnt turn it into a loophole...

[Gandallfia]

Although reading through again there is a vague attempt to do this present, I think I need to be convinced that it is a necessary addition to the Charter.

[Gandallfia]

I think so, Gand. Better to have it written, so someone doesnt turn it into a loophole...

That was my reasoning, I was already forming loopholes in my mind on how to subvert the spirit of this Clause with others, and also other clauses with this one.

[Southern Bellz]

Wouldnt this all just be easier if it was called freedom of speech?

[Gandallfia]

Wouldnt this all just be easier if it was called freedom of speech?

Ah, if only it was that easy, what do YOU <strong class='bbc'> MEAN </strong> by <em class='bbc'> freedom of speech </em>?



(Sorry for the various different stresses, but they are three very different, and important, things that need to be stressed)

[Unibot]

Although reading through again there is a vague attempt to do this present, I think I need to be convinced that it is a necessary addition to the Charter.

notwithstanding expression deemed unjustifiable and injurious to the security of the person

That part would cover defamation and hate speech and other parts of the 3WL. As for it's justification, we have no law entrenching our fundamental freedoms; for example, "Freedom of Expression" is currently protected when it suits the majority to do so currently; when one is saying something that the majority does not like.. instantly your right to say it is diminished in their mind. That's the importance of entrenching these fundamental rights in law instead of the individual conscience or even worse, the law of mobs.

[LadyRebels]

I have a question, when did TSP get an Inquisition?

[Unibot]

I have a question, when did TSP get an Inquisition?

It's satirizing Ant, SB and AMOM especially, but the "witch-hunt" attitude and logic behind this "feederite" cause in general.

[A mean old man]

If that's how you choose to react to and label my concerns, then I suppose it's time to stop trying to talk and finish all of this the way it should have been started.

[Antariel]

Strongly against for the moment; Uni's trying to set up a loophole to avoid prosecution.

[Gandallfia]

There comes a point when a community grows up and decides that instead of legislating for everything it must become a society where the citizens use their inherent desires for various freedoms to judge how they should act towards other members of society. And until before this last week this proposed bill would have seemed like an uneccessary piece of legislation as (from where I view it) everyone was acting like a matured community. The current issue can be settled in a satisfactory manner through the rules laid out for Judicial proceedings, and therefore if another situation like it arises the Judicial System will cope with it, unless of course you do not trust in the independence of the Judicial system? I would hold that in its current form this bill is capable of subverting the spirit of TSP Charter and how we justify treason and is therefore a dangerous piece of work in the wrong hands if intended. (I also do believe that the Charter and other laws cover these rights already ---- I think I want to extand my final point a bit hence the brackets)

[Milograd]

I am unsure of what to think of this, insofar as I believed that the aforesaid freedoms were already implied within our charter. Furthermore, the lack of strict definitions makes it fairly difficult, if not impossible, to accurately interpret this in the event that such is neccessary. I could see myself supporting this if vivid definitions of the freedoms in question were provided.

[Unibot]

Actually I'm not sure these freedoms are implied anywhere in our Charter, we've just always taken it for granted.

Strongly against for the moment; Uni's trying to set up a loophole to avoid prosecution.

If you think a Freedom of Speech is a loophole, perhaps you need to consider your argument against me.

I would hold that in its current form this bill is capable of subverting the spirit of TSP Charter and how we justify treason and is therefore a dangerous piece of work in the wrong hands if intended. (I also do believe that the Charter and other laws cover these rights already ---- I think I want to extand my final point a bit hence the brackets)

I think a Freedom of Expression and Crimes of Treason can be reconciled, if they cannot, we need to consider how we're persecuting people for Treason. I don't any part of Charter nor any other law actually protect these fundamental freedoms.

unless of course you do not trust in the independence of the Judicial system?

Without constitutional protection of these fundamental freedoms, I do question whether are Judicial system can apply restraint on itself during times of mass hysteria and drama; I'm not saying anything about the independence of the Judicial system.

[Antariel]

No Uni, I just think it's so vague you'll warp it to your own benefit.And how will it square with our 3WL on Slander?

[Unibot]

notwithstanding expression deemed unjustifiable and injurious to the security of the person.

[Hileville]

Actually any Charter Amendment would not even apply to the current charges that are being looked into right now.

[Antariel]

And how would you define that, Uni?Hil; I meant in any future issue Uni may cause. Trust = gone.

[Unibot]

And how would you define that, Uni?

Mostly things already covered by our 3WL.

[Antariel]

'mostly'.Also, that would sort of need stating in the law.

[Southern Bellz]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="LadyRebels">I have a question, when did TSP get an Inquisition?

It's satirizing Ant, SB and AMOM especially, but the "witch-hunt" attitude and logic behind this "feederite" cause in general.
</blockquote>I am the farthest thing from a feederite lmao.A TSPerite, maybe But please, any more accusations you would like to throw at me or is selling out TSP to outside organizations, harassment, and a witch hunter enough?

[Antariel]

We seem to have lost the plot here; need to incorporate links to 3WL if this is even going ahead.

[Southern Bellz]

I don't get what this protects, half of this seems to be protection to think whatever you like. How could anyone change that? Why does that need to be legislated?If we have a bill of rights type of bill, which I would be behind, I think it would have to be a bit more clear and focus on more tangible actions.