Freedom of Dress
Indeed, we feel that such a proposal is terribly flawed in multiple instances. First of all, clause (a) clearly allows nations to prohibit clothing at all. Doing so would nevertheless end up giving more restriction power to the state instead of limiting such occurrence. Secondly, in clauses (b)(ii), it allows the restriction of clothing in cases where “a reasonable member of that sapient being's species” might need some more coverage in some specific parts of the body. This clause is very troublesome: it doesn’t specify what a ‘reasonable sapient being’ is; it doesn’t specify what requires a part of the body to be deemed private and in which cases; it does stand against the preamble of the proposal itself (specifically where it says “Condemning the various archaic policies on clothing”). Thirdly, clause (b)(iv) doesn’t allow, in contrast, enough restrictions since military corps and or emergency services aren’t the only ones which would need protection from impersonation. Finally and more importantly, clause (b)(v) completely contradicts the whole proposal making it ultimately and de facto null.
Therefore, considering the poor and seriously flawed state of the proposal and deeming that it shouldn't have reached the floor in the first place, the Office recommends a vote against 'Freedom of dress'.
Why was I tagged?!
Current policy emerged from the poll conducted here, which showed a majority supporting telegrams disseminating these messages to all residents. Internally, however, the Office compromised between telegrams – which many in the region might find spammy, due to the default limitations of telegram mailboxes – and oft-ignored RMB messages.
The above tags were generated automatically by InfoEurope.
You can opt out of tagging by sending a telegram to the Office's WA Secretary or the Undersecretary for Communications. Current staffing information is located in the "STAFF" tab at the top of this page.