Commie Agitators

Equilism Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Commie Agitators last won the day on May 25

Commie Agitators had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Commie Agitators

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Communism, Agitating, Agitating for Communism
  • NationStates Regions
    Warzone Europe
  1. Given that the rightful government has now been restored to the delegacy, I should think that this motion is rendered moot. If there is any adjustment to be done to the treaty, it can be conducted in a bilateral manner.
  2. Treaties are not signed for the Machiavellian benefit of a single party, and that is not why we abide by them. We abide by them because that is the interregional and legal standard. If we abandon our treaty allies, who we have made a commitment to stand by, what does that say about us? What does that say about our trustworthiness in signing future treaties? What message does it send to our other treaty allies, such as Equilism? Is this same argument not also applicable to Equilism's relationship towards us? This action to unilaterally nullify a bilateral agreement sends the message that we do not care about laws, commitments, or principles, and that other regions are perfectly in the right to take such actions against us. Again I say that I have not seen any public declaration of support from either Europeia or Equilism. If you have a link to such a declaration, or else have some private correspondence in official capacity, that you wish to share for the public record, please do so, that I and my fellow citizens may be fully abreast of the situation. As I have seen no such declarations, I can only assume that these are private citizens not acting in official capacity. Such private citizens are naturally permitted to do as they please within the laws of their respective regions, and naturally, we are obliged to act against such private citizens in whatever capacity we are best able. I should reiterate at this point that merely because one of our allies may happen to support support a campaign against another one of allies, that we are under no obligation to lend our own support to their support. Indeed, were it to be revealed that Equilism is publicly and officially backing the new occupation in WZSB, the correct course of action would be military neutrality while maintaining official recognition of both governments, per the terms of both treaties, particularly as anything else would give Equilism reason to question our commitment to our treaty with them, and therefore raise, not lower, the possibility of our current allies turning hostile. Were it to emerge that either side were engaging in threats or other hostile posturing, to effect a favorable policy within our own government, this would be a clear violation of the terms of either treaty, which state in no uncertain terms, that both parties recognize the sovereignty of the other. Should it emerge, as has been hinted at in your own statements, that persons within the occupation government were using their position of privilege within other government to effect pressure against our region, I should think that sufficient reason to conduct a full inquiry into those actions, particularly as it would pertain to violations of our own laws and treaties. In short, our relationship with any region is based solely on trust; the same trust which we erode any time we abandon our treaty allies, particularly in doing so without extending the basic diplomatic courtesy of proceeding with the normal withdrawal framework. While we might gain some temporary relief in the short run by taking this extralegal shortcut, this course of action can only serve to doom our interests in the long run and destroy faith in the dominion.
  3. By rightful government, I mean the government with which this treaty was agreed, and which we agreed in the treaty to respect as the rightful government. In this case, at this time, yes, that means one native WA. I do not see anything in the text of the agreement which indicates that this would be a problem. We already de jure recognize this government as legitimate, and I see no compelling legal or moral reason why we should change that; indeed, I see no legal mechanism by which we may change that, except through negotiation with said government, as detailed in the treaty. I disagree on the notion that the only way in which they might regain the delegacy would inherently weaken our own position. I disagree on the notion that there is only one way in which they might regain the delegacy. I am not motioning for full scale war at this time, though that would be an entirely justified response; merely that our government continue to keep its binding word, and avoid trying to squirm out of our prior commitments merely because it is convenient, in a manner that would weaken our moral and legal standing as a democratic, native government that respects the rule of law, and can be trusted to adhere to its own treaties. As a point of order, I was not aware that any other government, let alone one of our allies, had publicly declared support for the new regime. The most I had been made aware of was that the leader of the new regime happens to be a relevant figure in Equilism. Nor was I aware that we were being compelled to a binary and mutually exclusive choice between two sides with which we have already made binding commitments. Perhaps you wish to clarify on this matter before proceeding further, to avoid further speculation potentially damaging to our foreign relations: Is this motion being put forward because you honestly believe it represents the best interests of the natives of WZEU to violate our word of honor and sacred law, or are we being compelled by foreign powers to pick a course of action which is incongruous with our principles and interests? Such compulsion itself, I must hasten to add, would naturally be an affront to the self-determination of our sovereign region, and, in addition to being a violation of either treaty, would raise serious questions of propriety against all involved. At present, I am aware of no hard evidence of such compulsion; only circumstantial evidence and speculation, in addition to the points you have raised.
  4. I object to the consideration of this motion, and hereby move that the question be postponed until such time as the rightful government of Warzone Sandbox is in a position to present its case and to negotiate on an equal footing.
  5. Sure. I only moved to vote on it because our governor said that they would like it put to a vote as soon as possible.
  6. As Requested by Governor Ancian, I hereby move to vote on this treaty. I vote Aye.
  7. I think we're in agreement. Excellent. I'll add it to the law codex then.
  8. All laws rely on sane interpretation and implementation. This one is no different. If you have specific suggestions for how to guide that implementation, don't hesitate. I'll add that this kind of legislation, which enables and sets a precedent for swift and effective sanction and ejection of harassers, is precisely the sort of laws which have been lauded by the Empress in her public speeches. In fact, her comments on the subject were part of what inspired the strict anti-harassment measures.
  9. The amendment to the Gendarmerie bill is to clarify the powers and responsibilities of the Gerndamerie Officers so that the new requirements for due process do not conflict with the previous legislation, which basically gave a blank check to law enforcement for summary justice. Basically, this is bookeeping to prevent future misunderstandings. We have laws which define citizenship, but don't define other types of residency (temporary visitors, refugees, ambassadors, etcetera). The definition provided in this bill is broader, to provide for the possibility that crimes are committed by non-residents. Besides providing equality before the law, it prevents a loophole from being exploited. For example, suppose a longtime game player establishes a puppet in our region as an emissary. They don't apply for, and therefore aren't granted citizenship. It then emerges that they have been using offsite resources to harass others. Strictly speaking, they aren't a threat to regional stability, and don't qualify for immediate summary ejection, but obviously if they're guilty, they need to be removed. This definition allows a speedy reaction without having to go through a lengthy legal debate and possibly have to summon the IM to ammend the law code.
  10. So, Warzone Europe is woefully behind on its standards of equality and civil rights protections. Here I am proposing a bill to help bridge the gap, and bring WZEU back into the fold of developed democracies. Bill Title: WZEU Civil Rights Act Preamble: The purpose of this legislation is to guarantee basic equality before the law and the right to equal participation. Section 1: All citizens of Warzone Europe are equal before the law, regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, social or economic class, religious creed, physiological ability or lack thereof, marital status, and political affiliation. Section 2: All citizens of Warzone Europe have the right to know publicly of any crimes which they are being prosecuted for prior to the execution of any punishment, and to have access to any related evidence, excepting where such public charges can be demonstrated to materially aid the cause of a specific group known to be hostile towards the Dominion government and its allies, or where such public charges are in violation of community standards on defamation or doxing. Section 2, Subsection 1: No citizen shall be punished for a crime without due notification of the specific law(s) which they have violated. Section 2, Subsection 2: Article 2, Section 2 of the Regional Gendarmerie Bill ("Officers…") is hereby amended to read as follows: "Officers have the right to summarily eject and ban non-citizens which are deemed a threat to regional stability, and to enforce the laws of the Dominion government among citizens" Section 2, Subsection 3: Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent or hinder action against subversive non-citizens or nations which have been stripped of citizenship. Section 3: The crime of Hate Speech is hereby established. Any remarks in any form related to Warzone Europe, that are found to unduly harass, intimidate, threaten, or defame, especially with regards to the categories mentioned in Section 1, shall be considered Hate Speech. Section 3, Subsection 1:The recommended punishment for Hate Speech is ejection and ban from the region for a period of three to six months, and a public apology. It is furthermore recommended that the material in question be removed from public record. Section 4: The crime of Harassment is hereby established. Any remarks or actions made by a resident against another resident, with either hostile intent, or with intent to discriminate based on the categories mentioned in Section 1. Section 4, Subsection 1: The term "resident" shall include, for the purpose of this legislation, any person, regardless of citizenship or consular status, operating within any legal jurisdiction of the Dominion of Warzone Europe. Section 4, Subsection 2: Harassment shall be a capital offense. Any resident found guilty will be stripped of all privileges, including citizenship and consular status. The recommended punishment is permanent ban from all Dominion jurisdiction, with Damnatio Memoriae applicable to all public posts and official records. Section 5: All citizens have the right to freedom of speech, association, and the press, subject to the laws and customs of Warzone Europe Section 6: The Dominion of Warzone Europe is and shall remain a secular state. No legal action shall be taken to compel citizens to a particular faith or creed. Section 6, Subsection 1: No resident may use public resources to proselytize their faith. Any resident violating this section may be prosecuted for Hate Speech.
  11. Broadcast