After a national referendum was held in the nation of a nirvana the public voted in favor of running for the Minister of Regional Affairs for Canada. Though my platform is still in its preliminary stages, a nirvana will push for the following:

A) More Referendums to be held on issues. This will be based on a hard campaign to attempt to have more nations active in Government and Regional issues. The more nations that Canada has active and involved, the more it will prosper into the future of Nation States.

B) A Nirvana will strive to add a Civil Rights Clause to the Canadian Constitution. Canada has a great Constitution has it is, but it would be even better if we had Civil rights in there. Nations' rights need to be protected right along side with protecting Canada's democracy.

Please voice any questions about my platform below, and in any case make sure you get out and VOTE!

I agree that the rights of citizens (nations, in this case) must be the foundation on which the rest of the region is built, and I'm happy to see it raised as a platform plank. During my tenure I repeatedly considered proposing a preamble to the constitution that would be essentially a bill of rights. Every time I thought about it, I decided against doing so, for the same reason.

Any codification of the rights of individuals is ultimately limiting. Some list defines the rights that are protected. Whatever isn't mentioned is implicitly not protected. I'd prefer to turn that around: any right or power that is not specifically removed by law remains with the individual. The current constitution admits that principle by not defining any list of rights. But, it does allow government to pass laws on any subject. So, there is perhaps a better balance to be sought.

To get to the question: what rights would you seek to enshrine, and how do you propose to deal with issues that are not on that list?

Very good questions.

Since it is impossible to create a bill of rights that will be 100% applicable, 100% of the time, I would push more for essential rights that are applicable to all times and generations. These rights could include: Women's rights, childern's rights, Equality rights, and Legal Rights.

I also hope to put in a clause to make ammendments easier on specific sections of the bill of rights so it will be easier to change as the times changes. The goal with this Bill of Rights is not simply to create more rules and laws that citizens will be obligated to follow. Others might be suggestions on specific issues. Some parts of the Bill, nations may be able to opt out of it their nation feels strongly against it.

As for for issues that are not on the list, changes could be made easily to accomadate them. If however there is a legal issue on the subject and it is not stated in the Bill of Rights, Canada's Court System or Government could step in as a neutral third part to arbitrate the situation.

As it may be in the case, that may not be a realistic solution. The Bill of Rights will probably be very complex. And it will be with the best intentions that we cover all angles and all loopholes to make it as perfect as humanly possible.

I don't see how these would apply in a NationStates context?

So if its easily changed, doesn't create laws, nations can opt out, and the courts could decide these issues anyway... why bother?

Only specific clauses, nations could opt out of. It should be easily amended for in the likely event that new customs or cultural traditions are introduced. The major focus on the Bill of Rights will be the legal clause which will protect citizens of Canada in any legal issues. For example: a fair trial, rights tied in with Treaty's/ interpretation of Treaty’s and economic decisions ect. Equality rights will protect nations from being persecuted by different beliefs ect. Women's and Children’s rights would be include in the Equality rights for protection against discrimination and persecution.

I would like to specify why I feel that Canada needs a Bill of Rights. Right now our democratic Government is at its peak of success and life is never better in the Great Country of Canada. Which is all the more reason why, at this peak, we should develop "systems" to ensure future prosperity with in Canada. With our current government in place it is highly unlikely that there will be any abuse of citizens’ rights or the power that they have. However this may not be the case in our near or distant future. Times change, people come, people go, our liberty and equality must remain the same. I feel that we are at an optimal time to protect Canada's liberty and freedom. Protection for the future. We must not take for granted what is not guaranteed.

A Bill of rights is an interesting suggestion. I'm just wodering if you intend to incorporate this into the existing Constitution, or create it as a separate motion to run parallel with the Constitution?

Incorporating a Bill of Rights could also use the Board Use and Ejection Guidelines as a base-framework as, to a certain extent, it fulfills this function.

How do you envisage the creation, development, and implemention of such a piece of legislation occuring and, moreover, the enforcement or adherence to such legislation.

I would also be interested on your thoughts for Sections/Headings within this Bill and what areas of Regional happenings, in brief, it would cover?

This is an excellent idea; it would give Canada a great starting point to tackle this issue. The Bill of Rights could either be based around this, or just a separate clause in the Bill.

At this current time I am leaning towards having a separate motion to run parallel with the Constitution. I am not opposed to having it actually in the Constitution but other Nations might.

Well certainly this will be a large project and will take much time to complete. If elected I would begin with bouncing Ideas around to other nations. Every nation should have their input in this creation. While this is going on, a rough-draft will be created to outline the structure of the Bill. From there the details will be filled in much more specifically. Enforcement of this legislation must come from the nations themselves. If there is a breach of law in the Bill, then it is the duty of the witnessing nation to bring the allegation to the Government for further action. From there either the Government could make a ruling on the infraction or could pass the decision to a court or neutral arbitrator. In the event that a Government official has breached the Bill, a small court could be assembled, filled with a neutral jury from allied democratic regions, to make a ruling on the accused. The decision must not be dictatorial, so it part of the Bill must have a sentencing section. It would be hypocritical to have for the one who is guilty to have his/her rights violated for that same offense.

I'm wondering who this independent abrbitrator would be. Would it be duly elected sovereign Nations of the Canada Region, or would they be drafted from other Regions? If this were to be the case, would it be sovereign Nations of that Region, the Ambassador to that Region or another third-party? I'm also intrigued by your use of the term 'abitrator' in place of other terms given the definition of the adjective 'Arbitary'.

I agree with the hypocracy statement. Would it not be better to handle the situation, should it arise, 'in-house'. If it is the case that a Cabinet member is under investigation, it may be necessary to grant access to the Cabinet Forum to allow the 'arbitrator' access to all relevant information for the ruling. This could comprimise Regional security. Perhaps an approach whereby the Defendant(s) and Prosecutor(s) submit evidential statements to the jury and 'arbitrator' for consideration and sentencing. Ultimately, the 'arbitrator' would require the poer of veto in case of a hung jury.

It does not matter who the arbitrators are as long as they are and act in an unbiased manner. In most case scenarios, the Canadian Government will make the ruling, unless there is suspected corruption within. In such an event a neutral third party would be created.

That’s a good point, the truth must come out but at what cost? Since the Arbitrator will most likely only be-used when there is suspected Corruption with in the government the bill must be designed to Protect Canada's security as well. If the relevant information will jeopardize Canada's security it should censored from the Arbitration hearing to protect the region.

I have a question. Is everything said in the Cabinet recorded on File?

Part of the Minsiter of Regional Affairs' responsibility is to submit the weekly Cabinet Disclosure Report. This can be found in the Minister of Regional Affairs Forum.

Yes I realize that, but are topics of Regional Security Recorded, Information that couldn't be released to the public because It would jeopardize Regional Security.