[Discussion] Proscription of the New Pacific Order

[New Rogernomics]

Link

(1) The Assembly may, at the request of the Delegate or the Council on Lazarene Security, designate a region or organization as a hostile entity. Such designation will require a two-thirds vote of the Assembly to approve or rescind. The Assembly may rescind such designation on its own initiative.

If we are to accept a case by case process, then we have to be aware of all the implications of that.

 

[Mysterious Player]

A proscription of the NPO sounds good to me. Most of them aren't trustworthy to me, and while there are some of them that are, I don't think picking favorites in situations such as these is a good thing.

 

[Cormac]

I support proscription of the New Pacific Order. The Hostile Entities and Persons Act was written primarily with them in mind, and proscribing the NPO just makes good sense now that we're at war. I don't see how anyone could manage the conflict of interest inherent in being involved here and in a region with which we're at war -- it's just an irreconcilable conflict. There's really no way to separate out the two roles. So this would just be common sense to me.

To be clear, is this a formal request from the Council on Lazarene Security for the NPO to be declared a hostile entity? Because such requests can only be made by the Delegate or by the CLS, so I want to be clear if we're talking about a formal request from the CLS in this thread.

 

[New Rogernomics]

This is the general discussion thread. We'd be making another for a request.

 

[Wymondham]

I fully support the proscription of the NPO, especially given recent events in which they have hounded out a member for a joke they made in a futile event to promote themselves as caring about GCR sovereignty