Libertarian Socialist Confederation

same

Red Green and Black wrote:

I'm voting in favor of this Freedom of Association proposal, but I'd like to hear arguments against it if anyone wants to make them.

I voted against since by that we would allow people to join racist organisations such as KKK or some Nazi groups that may not technically harm people, but allowing them to exists keeps spreading the idea.

Benilandia wrote:

I voted against since by that we would allow people to join racist organisations such as KKK or some Nazi groups that may not technically harm people, but allowing them to exists keeps spreading the idea.

"[A]n organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it...spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group."

Puppetalia is a year old today!!

Benilandia wrote:

I voted against since by that we would allow people to join racist organisations such as KKK or some Nazi groups that may not technically harm people, but allowing them to exists keeps spreading the idea.

I see what you're saying. I think that the language of the proposal can be less confusing. The way I understood it is this:

There's a main clause that says "Believing that no nation should enact criminal penalties for affiliating with an organisation not involved in the commission of a crime, hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:" So I understood that to mean that the WA should not prohibit anyone from joining an organization with a clean criminal record.

And underneath that main clause there is a subclause (clause b) that attempts to describe what kind of organization can be considered undesireable. That's the clause that reads "An organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it actively undermines national security, directs its members to violate national criminal law, includes the commission of crimes among its goals or activities, or spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group."

In a well written proposal, terms that need to be defined are clearly defined at the start and in such a way that the reader knows it's a definition to be applied to what's below it. So because this clause was at the very bottom, I can see how it seems not like a definition and more like a statement in support of these kinds of groups.

Red Green and Black wrote:

I see what you're saying. I think that the language of the proposal can be less confusing. The way I understood it is this:

There's a main clause that says "Believing that no nation should enact criminal penalties for affiliating with an organisation not involved in the commission of a crime, hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:" So I understood that to mean that the WA should not prohibit anyone from joining an organization with a clean criminal record.

And underneath that main clause there is a subclause (clause b) that attempts to describe what kind of organization can be considered undesireable. That's the clause that reads "An organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it actively undermines national security, directs its members to violate national criminal law, includes the commission of crimes among its goals or activities, or spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group."

In a well written proposal, terms that need to be defined are clearly defined at the start and in such a way that the reader knows it's a definition to be applied to what's below it. So because this clause was at the very bottom, I can see how it seems not like a definition and more like a statement in support of these kinds of groups.

I see that now. I probably missed out on it. Thank you for bringing my attention to it.

I also voted in favour as it seems rather pro-union. While I understand why people may be worried about it protecting fascistic groups, the part on criminal activity probably covers that, so generally the proposal seems in line with what the region values.

Utarchous wrote:

I also voted in favour as it seems rather pro-union. While I understand why people may be worried about it protecting fascistic groups, the part on criminal activity probably covers that, so generally the proposal seems in line with what the region values.

Looks like it is gonna pass

Yeah my last 9 issues havent done anything

Red Green and Black wrote:

I was wondering how you chose the design for the flag.

I don't remember, but I have thought about proposing ideas before. I don't have any for now, of course.