I have read a copy of your pending legislation, ’Temporal and Cultural Non Interference Bill’. I am supportive of its existence in principle, but could not vote for the bill as it currently stands. I may offer some amendments if needed if the bill reaches one of my committees or the Council floor, but I thought I’d voice my concerns, and give you the chance to make some tweaks before it gets that far.
I would include somewhere binding who the bill applies to. This might include Federation private citizens, Federation or member planet registered corporations, the Federation and its agencies save Starfleet, Starfleet, agencies of member planets and non citizens operating within Federation territories. My inclination would be all of the above, and so it could be read. It would help the Supreme Court if you make it explicit.
The Constructionists are advocating spending Federation money to improve member planet cultures. Traditionally, when a new member joins the Federation, weather control and earthquake control technology is provided. Risa, for example, was nigh on uninhabitable before weather control, and became a tourist destination after. This could easily be construed as being forbidden by this bill.
If you wish to get any Constructionist votes for the bill, you will have to give them a work around for such cases. My suggestion would be to use a limit such as ‘without the consent of the culture being changed’. I might even suggest a supermajority style majority declaration of the consent. This would make sure it is a broad agreement of the culture, not a highly controversial political choice. At the same time, you would want to be able to bypass a fanatic tiny minority from stopping all change. There is a tricky difference between enabling a change that most members of a culture want, and allowing a tiny minority to impose on the culture.
Section II, item 3 at least should have such an informed consent escape. For example, weather control, earthquakes and asteroid strike involve the ability to detect disasters well before they occur, and which can prevent the disaster if the Federation acts.
And there is a big difference between the ambassador representing a culture asking for help and his saying do not interfere with my culture against its will. This difference should be reflected somehow.
I am a little dubious about banning help to a culture escaping the negative consequences of their action. Disasters do change cultures. Bad ideas can seem like good ones, but their consequences only become clear later. I sympathize with the line, but you are putting a limitation on how the Council can help Federation citizens from recovering from a mistake. I would prefer if the Council could be left aware of the principle, but free to act if it decided to. That line requires some thought, but it makes me nervous.
There is also a distinction between a normal law and rewriting the Federation Charter. The ordinary law is easier to pass, adequate, and may be far faster. You may wish to reconsider using the ‘constitutionally enacted’ keyword.
“There,” said Idris. “What do you think?”
Syrta read though the response, and reluctantly nodded. “You could have spoken Truth to Power a bit more loudly.”
“It doesn’t seem necessary,” Idris replied. “I think I laid out the issue clearly enough.”
“Perhaps you did. If not, I might speak up again.”
Idris laughed. “I know you will. I have been thinking of getting you a T shirt. ‘I am not arguing. I am explaining why I am right.’”
“Ha! You should meet my grandmother.” She considered. “I’ll have to think a bit on whether such a shirt should be worn by the entire House of Truth.”
“Careful. You can’t create an official Federation religion.”
“Not even your grandmother.” Idris hit return.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest