Talk:Kodiak Universal Rights, 650

Kodiak Universal Rights, 650 Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/09/2023 1:17 PM

Tom Westbrook, MGA, Independent, as an Independent member's bill. Kodiak Universal Rights, 650 A resolution to expand upon the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of Kodiak. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Kodiak_Universal_Rights,_650 Proposed by Tom Westbrook, MGA, Independent. Voting is presently set for 23 February 2023 The Kodiak Republic Wiki Kodiak Universal Rights, 650 A bill to repeal and give further effect to the Rights and Freedoms granted under the Kodiak National Rights Act 642; to expand upon The Guarantees outlined in Article 4 of the Constitution of the Seventh Republic of Kodiak. ACTIONED on ## MONTH YEAR with ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/09/2023 1:17 PM

@Assembly Member Discussion on this proposal is now opened. Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 02/09/2023 1:47 PM I don't think there is much to say, the law explains everything any human being has the right to, It's a clear yes from me. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 02/09/2023 2:18 PM Similarly from me as well. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/09/2023 2:43 PM Just by a quick glance, I have some adjustments/comments. Will be back shortly. Right off the bat, article 16 needs to be way more specific. Public schools? Private schools? College? Immigrants? It is known that it is obviously public schools, but if this is to be an official bill of rights it has to be more specific imo Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/09/2023 2:50 PM Also article 18. Does this include weapons? Tom Westbrook — 02/09/2023 3:57 PM So I think I can respond to both of these with a similar answer.

The bill is intended to outline the rights and freedoms for people not specific departmental policy. I designed the bill like this intentionally, it is to provide protections for people while allowing government to still have wiggle room to make policies without infringing on the bill.

I wanted to avoid a system where the government was effectively bound by a second constitution that makes policy making needlessly complicated

So in effect, the answers to your questions are determined by our current government policies :) Tom Westbrook — 02/09/2023 4:00 PM I would also say in this case it might be very hard to convince a judge that a weapon is being enjoyed peacefully outside of a select few circumstances Luik Oule [KWP] — 02/09/2023 9:52 PM A really well worded proposal, kudos to @Tom Westbrook for the hard work. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/10/2023 2:36 AM In fact, I don't have too many complaints about this bill. They mainly consist in the requirement of optimization and accuracy.

The concepts of 'inhuman' and 'to degrade' are too vague in article 4.1. It's easier to remove them.

According to Article 6, I would like to remove 6.1.1-6.1.7. The words 'legal procedures' are quite enough. I am against the clause in 7.2. The public should be informed about the courts and what is happening in them.

Now I want to express my admiration for articles 10 and 11. Separating thought and deed is a good idea and work. Unless in article 11 I would remove religion, because freedom of thought implies freedom of religion.

Article 13 can be removed. Free private life is impossible without the freedom of marriage, and the first is already prescribed.

Articles 18-19, I believe, should be immediately after the article on the right to life. Such important rights should be at the beginning, not at the end of the list.

As a result, I want to say: this is a good bill that has a lot of good ideas. I repeat, I only seek optimization. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/10/2023 3:32 AM I agree this is more government policy with specificity towards 'adequate standard of education' - is that what you are pointing out? For example current legislation includes non-state schools in that regard. Interestingly, I would actually regard non-state schools as covered by 'educational providers' no? Willing to hear thoughts on distinction. Article 18 - I would interpret it as inclusive of weapons if legal. Although my question here is is 'peaceful enjoyment' the right wording or should it be 'peaceful and legal' enjoyment? I'm not sure. While I agree that freedom of thought implies freedom of religion, I believe that specificity here is a direct rejection of religious persecution, rather than implied. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/10/2023 3:42 AM I disagree regarding article 13's removal - specificity here is a direct rejection of the counter, it could actually be argued (in bad faith) that a private life doesn't automatically protect the right to marriage (ie.,, marriage recognised by law). So this I believe is a case where specificity is a good extension. Article 18 and 19 (or at least 19) being moved up sounds fair. Particularly how 19 can also support some intent - protecting rights doesn't mean freedom to suppress someone else's rights, prior to going into specifics about protected rights? I think this act is wonderful, and a no-brainer to add to our code of laws - but of course the floor remains open for any optimisations or clarifications needed. As I've said a long while back, great initiative Mr Westbrook. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/10/2023 6:04 AM I propose a compromise option. Remove article 13, but add something like to Article 5: "No one can be forced to any action or inaction against his will, except in cases "stipulated by the legislation of Kodiak". This will not only ensure the freedom of marriage, but also give important additional rights to the residents of Kodiak. Tom Westbrook — 02/10/2023 7:31 AM I’ll tackle these suggestions one at a time

I’m hesitant to remove “inhuman” and “degrading” from 4.1 as while I agree they are vague, I think removing them leaves a loophole for people to maliciously exploit. It currently could provide us with a broad justification for several types of assaults and abuse.

I included subsections 6.1.1-6.1.7 for the express purpose of preventing the state from creating a new legal proceeding that would enable people to be detained.

I agree with your sentiment about public trials. I added the caveat due to concerns about national security that could arise from courts. Additionally the presence of the public could be disruptive to the application of justice (hence public order) or a vulnerable witness might not be able to receive sufficient protection and so their identity must be protected. Some more input on this would be nice from all parties.

I will echo the Madame Chancellor about the explicit religion reference. I deemed it important to include for reasons of being explicit in protecting religious belief.

I will address your article 13 suggestions in a reply to your later address.

I did my best to structure the rights and freedoms from most severe impact should it be contravened to least severe impact. Personally I think it is ludicrous to place 18 higher than the current article 4. I will agree that 19 could be moved, however. I did toy with organising the bill such that it outlined Freedoms first and then Rights but that meant demoting the Right to life from initial position which felt wrong. I ultimately placed 19 at the end of the Rights and Freedoms as I felt it provided a nice conclusion to their listing and transitioned nicely into article 20 Tom Westbrook — 02/10/2023 7:34 AM I do not find this solution sufficient. The right to marriage as it is outlined here is very important to be stipulated explicitly and I’m not prepared to remove it from the bill in a way that makes it less explicit I would also like to thank the members of the assembly on their kind words regarding the bill Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/10/2023 7:56 AM It seems to me that the version of article 4 with the word "inhuman" creates more loopholes than the version without it. Perhaps it is not necessary to codify something with broad powers. I have no more questions on articles 6, 18 and 20. Public hearings of court proceedings are needed not for witnesses, but for the accused, so that it would be impossible, using a closed court, to convict an innocent person. I propose to make the courts closed, but with a mandatory record of what is happening, which is published after the court session.

Freedom of religion and freedom of marriage seem to me to be obvious concepts. And in the XIX century it was relevant, but not now. Maybe we should also remember about the estates from the Middle Ages? I think it is necessary to describe only those rights for which there is a struggle today and fundamental rights.

I want to emphasize the following: we should give rights because a person should be free, and not try to make a person free by giving him rights. It is necessary to give basic and broad rights, and not try to create many many narrow ones. Tom Westbrook — 02/10/2023 7:04 PM I think the fact that rights to free religion and to marriage are not archaic and do need to be expressly given considering they not not universally available to people in other countries still to this day. Also, by removing those articles and sections what message would that send to our constituents?

I am confused as to why you push for broadening of the marriage and religion clauses but find the broad scope of article 4 to be an overstep Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/10/2023 9:06 PM

by having too broad of a definition legally of what rights people have, the door is often left open to those who would remove rights from groups of citizens Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/11/2023 8:22 AM I'll try to explain. I believe that it is necessary to prescribe in the legislation only rights in the general sense. For example, that everyone is free, i.e. acts according to his will, but as long as it does not restrict the analagic rights of other people. It follows from this that it is impossible to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of marriage, freedom to enter and leave groups, etc., although the initial offer at first glance is not that big. There is no need to expand on something smaller, like "you can walk slowly", "eat carrot cake", or "play a broken guitar". This is already spelled out. In addition, clarifying unnecessarily, in my example, belittles the right to freedom. No matter how beautifully you paint the rights, they will not reflect the meaning of the word "freedom". The most correct (in my subjective opinion) was to write something in the spirit: "Human is a free being. This is a universal postulate, an axiom obligatory for our society. The only thing that limits him is his own will and the freedom of other people, as well as the foundations of the state, as the main defender of human freedom after himself. The human will is boundless, so it is impossible to describe all the freedoms in any detail, but the most valuable of them are solemnly presented in the following list: ", after which we list everything that we want to clarify. Similarly with the rest of the rights. And I insist on what I wrote in previous messages, because I want to consolidate the basic right to freedom, which, it should be noted, is not directly shown in your bill. The expansion of the article in my version eliminates this flaw. Tom Westbrook — 02/11/2023 9:06 AM Article 6 is the Right to liberty so I’m not sure why you don’t think this is shown in the bill? 6.1 - Everyone has the Right to liberty and security. No person shall be deprived of their liberty unless in accordance with a lawful procedure: Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/11/2023 6:31 PM

and that seems almost absurdly broad Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/12/2023 7:58 AM Apparently, I missed an important part of the bill again. Indeed, freedom, although not as widely as I would like, is still shown in due measure. Here I must apologize for my inattention. Anyway, it turns out that Article 6.1 already covers a lot of articles. Tom Westbrook — 02/12/2023 4:18 PM How would you suggest it be improved? Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/12/2023 5:21 PM

I think when it's left too broad it makes it easy to abuse, is the problem Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/13/2023 2:14 AM On the contrary, latitude suppresses any possible attempts at abuse. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/13/2023 7:34 AM

Unless you are dealing with people who believe that the law is only as read, and not as interpreted. Tom Westbrook — 02/13/2023 11:47 AM I do think the rest of Article 6 goes some way to suppress potential abuses Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/13/2023 2:12 PM

possibly, I just worried offhand about the interpretation. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/13/2023 4:55 PM As long as their aren’t loopholes I am okay with the bill. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 02/13/2023 5:22 PM I don't think this bill needs to be incredibly specific. It just needs to cover the basic freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition as well as criminal rights such as right to trial by jury, freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments, and protections from self-incrimination. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/13/2023 7:50 PM

I don't think it needs to be "incredibly specific" either, but being overly broad can be as dangerous Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/14/2023 3:01 PM

any other discussion or proposed amendments? Tom Westbrook — 02/14/2023 7:22 PM I’m happy to add any suggested amendments from the people who are nervous about the bill being exploited W. Magnus Ward — 02/14/2023 7:24 PM My question is for the author. Do you feel there is any issue between the obligations of this act regarding freedom of thought and speech, and the standing Resolution against Fascist Ideologies? https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Resolution_against_Fascist_Ideologies_(634) The Kodiak Republic Wiki Resolution against Fascist Ideologies (634) A resolution to define an active philosophical and policy position of the government of the Kodiak Republic. Approved 5 Nov 21 - 11 Aye, 1 Nay, 1 Abstain The General Assembly of the Kodiak Republic, DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, “fascism” as an ideology built on the foundations of violent authoritarianism and police reprisal, anti... W. Magnus Ward — 02/14/2023 7:36 PM I might also ask, would we prefer the term "age of majority" in article 13? And finally, how well does the author feel the act tessellates with the present https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Kodiak_National_Rights_Act_(642) The Kodiak Republic Wiki Kodiak National Rights Act (642) A resolution to define the rights of the people of Kodiak through Sexuality, Gender, and the right to an Abortion. Passed the General Assembly, June 27th, 2022. 13 Aye, 3 Nay, 3 Abstain. Tom Westbrook — 02/14/2023 10:24 PM I would note that the bill introduce the rights to free thought and speech, not freedoms of thought and speech, the terminology is important as freedoms cannot be contravened. Many aspects of fascism which may be expressed under the right to free thought and speech would contravene the freedom from abuse of rights held by others, as such their right to free speech and thought could be waived under Article 20. I think a similar process would occur for hate speech for example. Tom Westbrook — 02/14/2023 10:24 PM I shall update the bill to match this wording Tom Westbrook — 02/14/2023 10:28 PM this bill is not designed to tessellate with the Kodiak National Rights Act (642) and as it states within the bill, it shall repeal and replace its function. The sentiments of this act are distilled to Article 15 in the new bill. I have purposefully left out specifics of abortion law as I believe the specifics of policy should be laid out in a further bill. Especially with this bill being already as long as it is W. Magnus Ward — 02/14/2023 10:29 PM This bill has my support. A freer people a stronger nation. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/16/2023 3:51 AM It is a truly marvelous bill. My comments about erring on specificity if there can be any doubt as to intent still stands, within reason of course as highlighted for the few specific cases. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/16/2023 8:20 AM

If there is no further substantive discussion in the next 24 hours, I'll move to open the vote EasyPoll BOT

— 02/17/2023 8:28 AM

Question Do you approve of the Kodiak Universal Rights Act?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [16 • 76%] 🇧 ░░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 5%] 🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 19%] 21 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (2 days ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 49076a52 Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/17/2023 8:28 AM

@Assembly Member seeing no further discussion, voting on the proposal is now open and shall remain open for 3 days. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 02/20/2023 1:00 PM

With 16 votes in favor, 1 against and 4 abstentions, this proposal is declared passed. This thread will be archived in 24 hours or so.