A Taste of Skizz: The Blog


I'm hoping to return to writing long-form pieces for the EBC in the not-too-distant future, but in the meantime, I'm committing to write more short, quick-hitting segments, which I'll post in this thread.

I called this thread a "blog," but it's really more of a dialogue -- I hope and expect that readers will comment in the thread, and their contributions will be part of the discussion.
 
Click to expand...

Polls will remain open another 10 hours or so, but with Swakistek holding a 19-10 lead in the vote at this writing, it's not too early to call the outcome -- barring an unprecedented reversal of fortune, Swak will be our next President.

A few comments on this outcome:

-- This election will trigger a rewrite of Swak's legacy. Up to now, his legacy could be summed up as "the citizen who has, by far, held the most positions and done the most work for this region without ever serving as its head of government." (Swak held this distinction by such a wide margin that I can't even guess who might hold it now -- his opponent is relatively high on the list.) Swak has done too much for this region to ever have his contributions marginalized, but his lasting legacy will turn in no small part on what does or doesn't happen in the next seventy days.

-- Why did Swak finally break through this time? It didn't hurt that he faced an opponent whose weaknesses largely mirrored his own. It didn't hurt that his opponent has commitments to another region, at a moment in history when Europeians seem more wary of that than they once were. And it didn't hurt that in an election where foreign policy was the foremost issue, his opponent took a foreign policy stance that ran counter to the recent trend in Europeian politics toward independence. But I think it's too facile -- and unfair to Swak -- to ascribe his victory to Apollo's shortcomings. Swak showed a new, more humble side in this campaign. That humble side is the outgrowth of a months-long effort to address the long-standing perception of him as high-handed. I suspect we will see a more consensus-driven leadership style from Swak than many people are expecting.

-- Apollo is a good guy and a hard worker. His renewed activity here is a terrific thing for Europeia, provided that renewed activity is sustained. I hope he's in Swak's Cabinet.

-- Speaking of Swak's Cabinet, it will be interesting to see whether he sticks with Vinage's strategy of putting relatively new citizens in positions of great responsibility, or if he instead leans more heavily on veteran citizens. I don't think you can put together a functioning Cabinet without including a few of our emergent leaders, but I'm guessing we'll see more veterans in a Swak Administration compared to the current one, where CSP is the only prominent leader who remotely qualifies as an old-timer.

-- I can't recall a presidential election that was covered as well by the Europeian media as this one. Credit obviously goes to the operators of the various media fora, but credit also should go to Gus for creating a cultural environment where media has flourished. After ruffling some feathers early, Gus has done an excellent job as Culture Minister.
 
I would argue that Apollo's platform does not run counter to Europeia's tradition of Independance, but rather is a differant interpretation of Independance, or a differant set of policies under the rubric of independance. Apollo is not advocating for something differant than independance - just a differant version.
 
I can't recall a presidential election that was covered as well by the Europeian media as this one.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, we've seen a number of General Elections with lots of articles and activity from the media, but more importantly, debates between Presidential Candidates. There are a few debates, and elections, that stand out in my mind as more interesting in terms of media activity than this one.
 
Swak also garnered much more vocal support1 from the more influential Europeians such as myself and CSP, though I can't tell you if that is due to a positive change in perception for Swakistek or a lingering negative perception of Apollo2 among some of the older citizens. Either way, those older supporters sway the undecideds and other active citizens.

Regarding your point about media coverage, I'd have to disagree. We've seen elections with better and more interesting3 coverage; however, it may not have been as widely spread amongst various media outlets and peoples in the past. I also have to disagree strongly with the idea that the Culture Ministry has been run well under Gus - what has been done under Culture? The more recent festivals we've had have been total busts in my opinion, and I haven't seen much churned out by the Ministry that isn't a personal project of the Minister himself. There are many things I would've done differently (obviously I'm biased since my time as Culture Minister), but the main thing that I saw lacking was heavy involvement of Junior Ministers.

1 - That's relative. We didn't have the most vocal election compared to others in the past - recently and not so recently. Off the top of my head, I can only name two vocal supporters of either candidate, excluding the candidates themselves. Those that have been more vocal in the past (like myself) were relatively quiet.
2 - Regardless of how much he's matured or changed over the past year, Apollo will still have to deal with the legacy of his past actions, at least amongst the older Europeians where that legacy still worms its way into our conversations as a negative example.
3 - Not that the coverage given this election was anything poor.
 
Lethen, you were easily the best Culture Minister I've seen, precisely because you were able to get some highly effective JMs to help carry the load. You underestimate how impressive an achievement that was.
 
Skizzy Grey said:
Lethen, you were easily the best Culture Minister I've seen, precisely because you were able to get some highly effective JMs to help carry the load. You underestimate how impressive an achievement that was.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this statement. Not to toot my own horn, but every ministry should have JMs like Drex and I were. A strong example now would be blairclair in Interior. Freaking workhorse!
 
Skizzy Grey said:
Lethen, you were easily the best Culture Minister I've seen, precisely because you were able to get some highly effective JMs to help carry the load. You underestimate how impressive an achievement that was.
Click to expand...
In my opinion regardless of who they are, it falls on the shoulders of the Minister to find active and reliable JMs who can handle workloads and make decisions on their own; if you fail to do so, you're Ministry will fail. Yes, I was lucky to have Shadow, Seven Deaths, and Drex as Junior Ministers all at the same time, but I did brainwash them well foster their growth fairly well and still would have regardless.

I'm a firm believer in Trickle-Down Ministry-nomics. :emb:
 
With a mindful eye to the fundamental principles of democratic government, the people of Europeia place paramount the rights and freedoms of citizens, and therefore ordain and guarantee the rights and freedoms enumerated herein, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Short Title

(1) This Act may be cited as the Charter of Rights Act (2012).

Fundamental Freedoms

(2) Every person in Europeia shall hold the freedoms of conscience and religion, as well as the freedoms of thought, belief, expression, and association.
Click to expand...

It is often asserted that we have a right to "free speech" in Europeia. Section 2 of the Charter of Rights (quoted above) is the legal foundation for that assertion. Although the word "speech" does not appear in the Charter, I think it's clear that the guarantee of freedom of expression, together with the related guarantees of freedom of conscience, thought, and belief (to say nothing of the express protection of religion), make "free speech" an appropriate shorthand for the state of law in Europeia.

But what does "free speech" mean?

Surely, it does not mean the same thing as "freedom of speech" in the United States Constitution, which has been interpreted to protect neo-Nazi propaganda, anti-religious and anti-gay bigotry, and other things that would run afoul of the InvisionFree Terms of Use. The language of our Charter of Rights itself argues for a more narrow interpretation than America's First Amendment. The preamble to the Charter of Rights provides that enumerated rights are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Therefore, it is not surprising that free speech in Europeia is generally understood not to be limitless.

The "reasonable limits" clause in our Charter of Rights is borrowed from Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without professing in any way to be an expert on this law, or Canadian law in general, the CCRF and its interpretation over the years offer a few ideas that might be helpful to Europeians trying to parse what our own speech guarantees mean.

-- Restrictions on speech must be "prescribed by law." Speech cannot be suppressed by an executive branch official on a discretionary basis. Courts should not uphold speech restrictions that are not expressly written into law, and should construe restrictions that are so written narrowly.

-- Restrictions must provide "minimal impairment" of protected speech. In our context, this means an outright ban on speech not prohibited by the ToU would likely not be sustained, but restrictions that still allow expression of content through alternate means (e.g., allowing comments on legislation in the Grand Hall, but restricting access to the Senate floor) are generally permissible.

-- The restriction of speech must be proportional to the importance of the end achieved. Compliance with the ToU is a must (and really lies outside the purview of our RP laws), but beyond that, imposing harsh punishments for speech-related offenses would be problematic, even where the "reasonable limits" clause allows some restrictions.

-- Distinctions between different types of speech are subject to especially close scrutiny. Any effort to censor general-subject forums based on the content of a particular individual's speech (again, within the bounds of teh ToU) would be highly suspect.

It speaks well of our commitment to free speech that these issues have seldom been litigated. And as a small, close-knit community, we should probably be able to resolve most issues that arise in this area without resort to the courts. It is good to know, however, that our laws support our commitment as a community to ensure that as we are unavoidably transformed by the rapid pace of change in NationStates, our commitment to free speech will endure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top