|
Post by sogoln on Jul 21, 2011 21:32:34 GMT 10
Last time I checked, Seborga had not ratified the UDHR.
The important word is "arbitrarily" so the big question here is: was there a fair trial? There's no mention of it in the decree.
Maybe it's time to write a letter to the new prince for questions.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jul 22, 2011 1:17:49 GMT 10
Last time I checked, Seborga had not ratified the UDHR. The important word is "arbitrarily" so the big question here is: was there a fair trial? There's no mention of it in the decree. Maybe it's time to write a letter to the new prince for questions. It doesn't matter if Seborga has or has not ratified the UDHR. The crux of the matter is that many international lawyers believe that the UDHR forms part of customary international law, which makes consideration of it almost a moral obligation on the part of any state or wannabee state. In order to ignore the UDHR, the individual nation or state would have to actually present legal rationale which justifies its opposition to the basic principles of the UDHR, and I'm not aware Seborga has done any such legal scholarship. To be fair, Seborga is not the only micronation which has violated the principle of citizenship as an (unalieable) right or birthright, rather than an (alienable or transferable) privilege. I am willing to write a letter to the new Prince in my best Italian, but I will do this only if the Formori Institute, Empire of Atlantium, and other decent micronations here are ready to support a collective letter. The UMMOA doesn't have diplomatic relations with Seborga, and in the past we have been pooh-poohed as a non-state by the territorial micronation. I believe it is time for micronations here to start pooh-poohing Seborga's lack of international legal standards.
|
|
|
Post by MrJay on Jul 22, 2011 3:59:37 GMT 10
I am not familiar with the case or story. A few points to make:
1.) The UDHR is a standard and is in fact customary law. It isn't compulsory and largely goes unenforced.
2.) You either believe in national sovereignty or you don't. Countries do not have to enter into treaties. In fact they don't even have to join the United Nations.
3.) Seborga being epic and iconic in our "world" is probably why there is such shock. Typically, "micronations" are very open and tolerant places/communities. (With a few notable exceptions)
|
|
|
Post by Lykos Packleader on Jul 22, 2011 6:10:22 GMT 10
Heyla,
From the "other side:"
Actually, although I do not remember the UDHR word-by-word, I do remember that there are parts of it that I find insulting to me as a Packleader, since it doesn’t take alternative family “values” into account, and instead insists that “everybody” finds its own attitudes the only ones “allowed.”
If Lykosha had to sign that document in order to join the United Nations, we could not --- it goes against my own principles and those of Lykosha…. Not even if we were awarded monetary compensation, land, and full treaties with other signatories of this Declaration. Honour is all --- there are some places I will not go.
And, while I realize that our own attitudes are “beside the point,” we strongly feel that, so long as Lykosha’s values (along with the possibly alternative values of other groups and nations bring no harm to their people and instead bring benefit, their parameters be included, or even substituted for the moral codes insisted upon by the UDHR. The world is a vast and powerful place; it’s much too big for such a narrow, small-minded “Declaration.” And what happens if or when we meet other peoples off this puny mono-racial clod of dirt? Shall we tell them “it’s our own way, or the highway?” I hope not; the human race is certainly far too interesting a species to so prematurely rid the galaxy of…. Even if only for now.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jul 22, 2011 8:19:01 GMT 10
This is pretty basic:
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. [Everybody, being born on earth, can't be reasonably denied at least one nationality.] (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. [This in theory applies also to alternative nationalities.]
There are no words which could be interpreted as against alternative families directly, but certain passages can be used to discriminate indirectly:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. [Nothing here defines what a family should be.]
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. [Only age may be a limitation.] They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. [Here the state can favour certain kinds of marriages, by defining marriage as something specific, and not something else, so discrimination is still possible to homosexual marriages, or polygamous marriages.] (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. [No mention of male and female only, and there is really no mention that the partners should be two and two only.] (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. [Again, no mention how many members a family should have.]
Article 23 practically doesn't exist in the United States:
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jul 22, 2011 9:30:53 GMT 10
The UDHR is an irrelevant concoction of the United Nations, which - as Cesidio has stated many times before - is evil, serves no useful purpose and has never done anything worthwhile.
Seborga can and should do whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Mckerra on Jul 22, 2011 14:43:58 GMT 10
"arbitrarily", it's a prohibition against the wholesale disenfranchisement of a class of people. The article on nationality was adopted, like much of the UDHR, in response to what had happened in Nazi Germany.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jul 22, 2011 15:10:27 GMT 10
I could argue that even the Montevideo Convention, despite being an example of the declarative theory of statehood, despite being also considered a part of customary international law, is not perfect, and I can even prove that it is imperfect. The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by other states. The declarative theory of statehood, on the other hand, defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. While the superiority of the declarative theory of statehood is fairly obvious, this does not preclude that some of the criteria to define statehood may not actually be erroneous. Yet the United Nations still follows the constitutive theory of statehood! Why? Because the constitutive theory of statehood, and the declarative theory of statehood, are based, in effect, on two different legal philosophies. Legal scholars have characterised international law prior to the end of WWII as 'positivistic', meaning basically that the conqueror creates the law for the conquered. With the creation of the United Nations, however, International Law has come a long way down the road towards 'deterministic' legal institutions, meaning that the conquered are finally beginning to determine things for themselves (aka 'self-determination'). Yet despite all of the progress made at the UN with respect to indigenous peoples, the constitutive theory of statehood still dominates in issues of recognition, even though it is essentially 'positivistic' in nature, not 'deterministic'. The UN tries to be all things to all peoples, and here is its major problem, but it is not the only one. The UN also claims the high seas and outer space through international conventions, even though it controls neither, and paradoxically these are also violations of the Public Trust Doctrine, and a fundamental impediment to the Homestead Principle. So the UN tells us that its members are sovereign, yet it violates the Public Trust Doctrine (it would be impossible for the UN to violate the Public Trust Doctrine if its members were genuinely sovereign). And the UN claims to want to help the poor, and those without rights, and be a fundamental impediment to the Homestead Principle at the same time. These are fundamental contradictions that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) does not even begin to address. The UN wishes to be a legal commons, all while obliterating the last material commons. The United States is a similar contradiction. It claims to be the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and yet allows private and public corporations to enslave and control the very same people who are supposedly sovereign. It gives people the right to vote, as if this were truly a significant right, but in fact once the candidates seeking power are elected, they exist mainly to provide privileges to corporations and special interests. It claims to be the land of the free, and the home of the brave, and yet it also claims its citizens are 'persons', legal fictional entities which are similar to government workers, but which largely do not enjoy any right to work. It rebelled against Great Britain largely on the issue of taxation without representation, and now it taxes its citizens even beyond the territory of the United States, citizens also without meaningful representation. It sponsors the creation of technology supposedly to liberate its citizens from repetitive and boring tasks, but in the end technology only creates wealthier businessmen, and less and less people actually having any meaningful work. It sponsors scientific research to end cancer, and yet the end of cancer is not even on the mission statement to begin with. If there is any Salvation George, it thus does not come from governments, or from the United Nations, or from technology, or from science, but from God. Only God is perfect, because he never enslaved Adam, unlike men, who always enslave their peers, their comrades, their fellows.
|
|
|
Post by sogoln on Jul 22, 2011 17:27:54 GMT 10
Since those people still retain another nationality and are not made apatrid by this decision, what applies here is UDHR 15-2 and the key word is "arbitrarily". Was this an arbitrary decision? Doesn't seem so, since it is explained that these people did usurpate titles. Was it a fair decision? Were they able to explain their view and defend themselves? The decree doesn't mention it and we could ask for an explanation.
There is no Formori citizenship at this time. The nationality is given after a one-year approbation period and cannot be removed without the consent of the person in question. However, in our Charter (which remains a draft unless we need it someday) we had planned the possibility for "banishment", which meant removing all representation and decision rights linked to citizenship, as the maximum punishment in our legal system. Sanctionned people would remain Formori by name bit would not be able to participate in any activity. Of course, since the Charter is inactive and we're all nice people, that doesn't apply nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jul 23, 2011 3:32:29 GMT 10
Since those people still retain another nationality and are not made apatrid by this decision, what applies here is UDHR 15-2 and the key word is "arbitrarily". Was this an arbitrary decision? Doesn't seem so, since it is explained that these people did usurpate titles. Was it a fair decision? Were they able to explain their view and defend themselves? The decree doesn't mention it and we could ask for an explanation. I'm not sure these people usurped titles. The decree of 4 July 2011, which revokes the citizenship of 11 Seborgians, speaks of a report of the Privy Council, which mentions the unspecified "behaviour" of certain citizens. It alleges that the "behaviour" was meant to undermine the inalienable sovereignty of the Principality (no specifics provided), to the point of the lack of recognition of the freely-elected Prince. All the citizens mentioned were members of the Venerabilis Equester Ordo Sacri Principatus Sancti Sepulchri (VEOSPSS), a chivalric institution heir of the Cistercian monastic knights, an ancient order whose life has always been intertwined with that of the Principality of Seborga. Further research reveals that at least some of these citizens, one of which was even a former president of the aforementioned order, were kicked out of the ancient order some time in February 2011, and what was their major criminal behaviour? The fact that at least some were members of Masonic lodges in the past. It seems to me that these people were first kicked out of the VEOSPSS because they were far from sympathetic to the new Serene Prince in charge, Marcello I, and this "behaviour", which was little more than a lack of emotionally demonstrative support for Marcello, along perhaps with their unwillingness to share some details about their associative past, was later used revoke their Seborgian citizenship as well. In other words, former Masons cannot apparently become members of the VEOSPSS order (this is at least a violation of the peaceful associative rights mentioned in Article 20 of the UDHR), and/or Seborgians, and if they ever do succeed in becoming Seborgians, they'll certainly lose their citizenship in the most arbitrarily fashion if they don't fill the adoration-driven and most newly elected Prince with the warmest possible support (a violation of Article 15 of the UDHR, and the violation of several other articles: Art. 2, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 12, Art. 18, and Art. 19). The only difference between a kangaroo court, and apparent legal procedure in the Principality of Seborga, is that in a kangaroo court you cannot be deprived of your citizenship, but in Seborga they will even arbitrarily take that away. This proves that Seborgian citizenship, being a privilege, and not a right, is not even a real micronational citizenship. The essential difference between membership in any organisation, and citizenship in a nation, is that the first is a privilege from which you can be alienated, while the second is a right from which you cannot be alienated (except in the case of free renunciation of citizenship by the citizen him-/herself).
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jul 24, 2011 2:19:38 GMT 10
Seborga does not follow US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) standards at all: Fortunately, it's not as easy to take away your citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization as the law reads. Even if you were not entirely truthful or forthcoming during the naturalization process, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) just can't arbitrarily revoke your citizenship.
Citizenship is one of those fundamental rights that our third branch of government (the judicial branch) takes very seriously. It appears the USCIS runs into difficulty with the federal courts when the USCIS revokes someone's citizenship without giving the accused his or her day in court. Source: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2638646/posts
|
|
George
Global Administrator
Head Honcho and Spangle of the Cosmos
Posts: 2,997
|
Post by George on Jul 25, 2011 15:45:38 GMT 10
Seborga does not follow US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) standards at all So what? The Principality of Seborga is not a sovereign state, but a micronation which operates as a sophisticated, communally-run local tourism booster group... ...so if it chooses to expel some of its members for reasons that it chooses not to make public, it's no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by rareearth on Jul 25, 2011 18:47:40 GMT 10
Seborga does not follow US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) standards at all So what? The Principality of Seborga is not a sovereign state, was never a sovereign state, and with its current political and religious philosophy, will never be a sovereign state. It is also deceptive front that likes to feel it is superior to virtual micronations, or even territorial micronations born yesterday.
|
|