I don’t really see how this proves that defending is a part of everyone’s identity. We could pass a resolution declaring that everyone’s favorite color is purple, but that doesn’t mean that it’s true. And while defending certainly has a significant group of people partaking in it, I wouldn’t really call it a pillar of the community
4 Likes
I’m finding the latest draft a bit hard to follow. I might be misreading, but it seems to leave innocent regions out of the list of legitimate governments against whom acts of hostility can be grounds for proscription. And I continue to think that the limitation on the PM/CRS’ authority to proscribe based on acts of hostility against innocent regions makes more sense in the grant of authority section rather than the definitions section.
I’ve proposed a slightly revised draft below, which I believe reaches the same result as the current version. But I look forward to everyone’s thoughts.
Amendments
Proscription Act
An act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition
1. Acts of Hostility
(1) The following acts committed against the legitimate government of the South Pacific, or its allies, or innocent regions are considered acts of hostility, whether or not they are successful:
…
(4) Insofar as an act of hostility is committed against an ally, the victimized region must be an ally at the time of the proscription.
…
3. Grant of Authority
(1) The Prime Minister, together with the Council on Regional Security may proscribe an individual that is not a member of the Coalition, or a foreign region or organization, that they determine to be hostile. The Prime Minister, together with the Council on Regional Security may proscribe a member or a group of members that they determine to be hostile.
(2) The Prime Minister and Council on Regional Security may issue a proscription based on acts of hostility committed against innocent regions not actively allied with the South Pacific only where the target of proscription has repeatedly committed acts of hostility against innocent regions with the purpose of griefing or destroying them.
I remain opposed to expanding the scope of proscriptions, even with Welly’s updated phraseology.
2 Likes
I know that some people may point to current events as a reason for this amendment, but I personally see it as the opposite. Our current laws around proscription clearly work, and are able protect TSP. Raider regions, the main target of this proscription, conducted an operation in an allied region and we saw a strong response from our government. What do we really gain from this amendment?
And where would we be if the attack didn’t happen? We knew the threat that existed, but we didn’t have the legal grounds to impose a proscription before. Our current laws around proscription clearly do not work. Before 24 March, we had an active BoM member who very clearly represented a threat to this region try to lawyer their way into citizenship. You think they’re coming here in good faith? No, it’s an infiltration.
If you are referring to Nagisa (British Bharat), I would like to remind you that this active Brotherhood of Malice member was an active member of TSP before that, and I do not believe it unreasonable that a former member of the region who still has friends here might like to return.
1 Like
I am referring to Siberian Districts, and I would like to remind you that this active Brotherhood of Malice member was an active member of TSP before that, and I do believe it unreasonable that a former member of the region who still has friends here might like to return if they represent an active and continuing threat.
I heavily doubt that every raider has quite the reputation that Siberian Districts does, having tried to overthrow the government of TSP. I do not find it necessary for us to proscribe every single raider region simply because they are raiders. We have security measures in place, and proscriptions for events like what currently happened. If raiders really want to get in, I also doubt that they would be doing so with a massive neon sign above their head.
“clearly represented a threat” 
I know it’s been a minute since you’ve been super involved with GP but usually infiltration involves not moving in with a main.
2 Likes