That is correct, this resolution would mainly be saying that we dont have a unified belief on the matter, and for that matter that it has never been Zoner policy to make moral judgments about who we allow to dock on our bases. That being said, it has also never been the Zoner way to force Zoners to stand in line, and as such, this resolution should not be seen as stopping or standing against the actions of Zoners Against Slavery or other like minded individuals or groups from following their beliefs on the matter.
And it's Shestov people, Lev Shestov, not Zev Leshtov.
Very well. It seems we have a Motion, and a Second;
but I am going to allow one more round of questions and comments on the Motion, just to be sure that all Delegates understand the intent and wording completely.
Then I will bring the Motion to the floor for a vote.
And.. i apologize yet again, Brother Shestov.. Can't we just call you "Two Bears"...?
To: The Council
We're glad to see this issue come to a new vote. Our one suggestion would be to change the word "condone" to "bar". Just a matter of vocabulary. No matter the outcome of this vote, we do look forward to dealing with the other pressing issues the Council faces.
-Jonah Robinson
Comm ID: Malcolm Reynolds
To: The Council of Zoners
Topic: "Human Cargo"
Fellow delegates,
I abstained from the vote about "liberating" cargo. I believe in the "captured pilots" part of it because it effects all parties equally. Adding "slaves" was a bit to controversial for for me to give a yes vote on the subject.
No matter how controversial it is....it passed!
I object to simply Re-voting on this topic.
Did we not understand what was being voted on?
Did we vote on something that wasn't clear?
How would re-voting clarify things if we still don't know what EXACTLY we are voting for?
Remember, this is a "Docking law" not a NFZ law. Unless they dock to "hide from their enemies" we shouldn't care what they have on their ship, that's what this law is about!
What we need to do is actually write up the "Official Zoner Base Laws" that includes the "final" wording of:
1) the NFZs, "what they are, and what they are not"
2) Docking Rules, "what we expect in return from our hospitality"
3) what happens to repeat offenders
and whatever else it needs it to say.
Write it up, put it up for discussions about wording, definitions, or whatever. Then after sufficient discussion, have the council ratify it as our "official" Position/Rules/Laws.
Let us all slow down and actually discuss what we vote on instead of voting on a single line to describe an issue that cannot be described with a single line.
*End of Message*
[Comm ID: Coriko Lameos - ZAS Delegate]
I can fully understand and to an extent agree with motion 4 being repealed. a neutral political standing is difficult to balance, and perhaps this was a step too far. Whilst I find condoning any slaver act dispicable, finding a way to enforce such a ruling, and maintain the CoZ's neutral status with groups such as the outcasts would be nigh on impossible.
I must also enquire whether the current motion brought forward by Brother Shade Yuka, would nullify the previous agreed motion to ban our, the Zoners Abolishing Slavery's "agressive" actions?
COMM ID: Delegate Shade Yuka, Freeport 14
On the contrary, Brother Lameos, from what was said, the Council of Zoners wouldn't 'bar' any action done against Slavers at the hands of the Zoners Abolishing Slavery. For it would fall under what 'Two Bear' and I have common thoughts on.
It would be the individual Zoner letting the Slaver be, or stopping the Slaver. Rather then the job of this Council. As the Zoners Abolishing Slavery are against Slavery, they would have the right to continue to liberate slaves from all Slaver Vessels. While, myself on the other hand (mind you, I am against the inhumane treatment of people.), would just ignore a Slaver. As it's the option of the individual.
However this brings me to what I cannot answer. "What if a ZAS, and a Zoner who doesn't care, are in the same system as each other, right next to each other with a Slaver?"
Just to bring this matter forward:
The Motion as presented: (I will stipulate that this Motion is understood to supersede and replace the current "Item 4")
Resolved, that the Council of Zoners will not take any official position on the legality or illegality of the slave trade in what is considered Zoner space. This resolution does not stop any individual Zoner from following his or her conscious, but this motion would affirm the Councils neutrality in this matter.
Current suggestions to amend:
I'm a bit confused as to where the condone/ban suggestion is applicable.. Delegate Robinson?
Separate "prisoners" and "slaves" as this Motion is applied. Brother Reynolds.
Delegate Lameos. I don't believe that Delegate Shade has any Motions on the floor, although his opinions carry equal weight in the possible amendment/revision of the current proposed replacement motion.
Delegate Yuka, you have succeeded in giving me a headache, sir; but your question is indeed valid, as the situation you suggest is definitely in the realm of possibility. *mutters.. "Hail Eris.."*
Proceed with your "round" of comments, Delegates.
To: Mal
The correction was to Mr. Yuka's interpretation. The motion as you stated it is fine. We are ready to vote and move on at any time.
-Jonah Robinson and Crew
Com ID: Doc Holliday
I've stated my position on slavery. If it comes for a re-vote then I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
In the mean time, while we debate slavery, Bowex and Bretonia continue to settle 10's of thousand of war refugees onto our home world, a world they claim as their own, as a way to try and claim it as their own. I don't like the thought that we're cleaning up the mess left by Bretonia's war with Kusari. So, that's where my attention will be focussed.
For those who may care, I received a report of a Corsair dreadnought guarding the planet as they have an interest in stopping this expansion. So, Council, excuse me while I begin preparing to begin diplomacy with Bretonia before it's too late, even if Queen Corina doesn't like me much.......Oh well for her!
-Doc
From: Louisa Salome, Zoners Trading Consortium
To. The Council of Zoners
Great Council,
I would like to see the duration of discussions and considerations prolonged in the 'Liberation by Docking' matter. IF we should have made a mistake passing the motion in the last vote it would be surely a second mistake to push it the opposite way by force now. I would like to suggest that the Chair adjourns the validity of this decistion until we all will have had enough time to evaluate the breadth of impact bound to this issue and thus may gain time to formulate a second motion properly.
For the issue itself I would like to remind everybody in thie Great Council here that political neutrality should only impact our behaviour directet outwards, but everything concerning our bases, called Freeports most of times, is to be regarded completely internal. The motion of liberating captives is synonymous to the future definition of our Freeports and, correct me if I am wrong, no Deletage claimed to change the slaver beliefs and actions so far which would clearly be leaving the path of neutrality, it is contrairiwise the decision about allowing individuals from other factions to dominate our Freeport guidelines.
In advance there are practical issues to be considered, just two little examples:
1. Even if we should condemn slavery we would not be able to avert slavers from docking at our stations, or would somebody dare to destroy a slaver ship while docking? Imagine body parts floating around this station and you will get an impression of the mess this would cause.
2. Would it not be extraordinary comfortable for every slaver to replace his 'lost cargo", surely deaths caused by cruelty and an immanent lack of medical supply, by some unfortunate drunks collected at the Freeport bars or even their quarters? Would a slaver restrict himself to drunks, or should we ban children from our bases to avoid a delicate kind of tragic incidents? Do we want our guest being scared to end up in a slaver ship?
It is a principal contradiction we cannot resolve if we are confusing politcal neutrality with our own rules of conduct, and this should not mean diluting our own rights as Freeport hosts. If our Freeports are meant to be free for everyone which does not only include a free docking but a free departure too, we are not only making a remarkable exceptions for the slavers but we are destroying the value of our Freeports.
Perhaps we should reconsider our love for freedom, or definition as 'freedom-loving people', since it is ONLY a strong belief which has nothing to do with neutrality itself, loving freedom means taking a side, well of course, a most unpopular it seems.
I suggest to differentiate between the behaviour we are expecting when somebody enters our 'territory', if we can call our Freeports so, and what we are expecting them to do in general, even on their own territory, and I would like that every Delegate asks himself if accepting slaver interferences in our own beliefs is the only way to 'act neutraly'?
With deep concerns,
Louisa Salome