Pavlov grants rights; seeks broader appeal

The Empire of Pavlov has ratified a new constitution that enshrines numerous civil rights as a means of gaining broader appeal, as well as to clarify the micronation’s status as a multi-national socio-cultural project.

Included in the new constitution proclaimed on June 21 is an explicit protection for civil rights that will prevent a citizen from deprivation on the grounds of race, gender, social origin, religion, or “any other distinction whatsoever”.

This protection is seen as a measured response to the widespread diplomatic condemnation that Pavlov received from the La MicroFrancophonie community last year. In that affair, Pavlov’s foreign affairs spokesperson, Casimir Qërimbasy, in response to the United States Supreme Court pro-same-sex marriage ruling, declared that any person engaging in or supporting homosexual acts within Pavlov would be persecuted.

With its new more moderate constitution, Pavlov is positioning itself to move on from the episode. “The constitution was designed to attract new citizens from a broader spectrum … while maintaining religious orthodoxy, [Pavlov] is moving away from parody,” said Emperor Alexander IV in comments to the Coprieta Standard, suggesting that the ultra-religious orthodoxy which characterized his micronation last year is a thing of the past.

Nonetheless, while it guarantees freedom from discrimination to its citizens, as a religious micronation, Pavlov’s new constitution continues to forbid same-sex marriage. “As a Christian state we believe in marriage between a man and a woman,” said the Emperor, “… proponents of same-sex marriage, they’re free to establish their own micronations and implement the policies they like.”

Diplomatic overhaul occurs in Sandus

KREMLUM SANDUS – In announcing a number of changes to its diplomatic relationships over the past number of days, Sandus has signalled the undertaking of a major foreign policy overhaul.

The significant change in direction for the micronation’s foreign policy began on July 13th when the Sôgmô, Will Sörgel, announced that Sandus would cut diplomatic ties with a number of bilateral partners while also ending its participation in the Saint Josephburg Economic Pact due to concerns over further integration.

In suspending relations with the Empire of Pavlov and the Sorrenian Federation, Sörgel cited what he described as these micronations committing infringements of Sandum diplomatic virtues. Specifically, these infringements referred to an inability to resolve ethical differences on the matter of homosexuality in the case of Pavlov, and a massive sharing of citizenship within the Sorrenian Federation which Sandus viewed as an unprofessional practice.

“With the suspension of relations with the Sorrenian Federation, Sandus has reasserted its commitment to serious and professional diplomacy …,” said Sörgel, noting that Sandus was following in the footsteps of other micronations in calling for greater professionalism in micronationalism.

Perhaps the most significant policy change came when Sandus announced a key re-engagement with Sirocco, which it had viewed as an ideological adversary since 2010. Sörgel announced that full diplomatic relations between the two micronations commenced today, marking a key step in normalizing diplomacy between the two for the first time in either’s history.

Sandus will also seek further economic and political integration with Kumano and Überstadt through a future tripartite association currently under discussion, while renewing bilateral initiatives with Landashir. Those initiatives include the relaxation of border controls, cooperation on the protection of minority rights, and the further development of local languages.

Godwin’s Law met as Pavlovian fallout continues

OPINION – The diplomatic isolation that is befalling Pavlov due to its unprogressive condemnation of homosexuality, while well-meaning, must avoid a loss of the moral high-ground by the invocation of Godwin’s Law.

The June 26 statement by Pavlovian Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Mr. Cazimir Qёrimbasy, in which that micronation characterises homosexual acts as “degeneracy, harlotry, and infidelity,” may serve to appease some religious zealots of the community, but it will only serve to place Pavlov on the wrong side of history. Combined with the government’s promise to persecute (not prosecute) homosexuals and their supporters in the name of a Christian God, Pavlov has, in what is generally the progressive and tolerant community of micronationalism, committed an act of diplomatic and migratory self-isolation, if not effective self-mutilation.

Regardless of one’s personal belief on the topic of homosexuality, there is a need in a small community such as micronationalism to let bygones be bygones. What one participant in this community – indeed, the wider world – chooses to do in his or her bedroom is inconsequential to another participant, especially when the interactions of micronationalists are often separated by the medium of the Internet.

It is important that we, as a professional and secular society, approach each other with mutual respect and judge each other based on our individual merits and contributions. It is these characteristics that determine the value of any one micronationalist; it is ultimately what determines the value of any individual in any society. Pavlov, in its attempt to occupy a falsely-perceived religious and moral high ground on the matter of homosexuality, has forgotten that such individuals are as capable as anyone else of contributing positively to the development of a community.

While a Pavlovian, or anyone for that matter, is entitled to be personally disgusted at the thought of a homosexual act in the bedroom, it’s important to keep the matter in perspective. The general opposition of religions, and in this case, Pavlov’s government, is squarely focused on the aspect of homosexuality that occurs in the most private of settings – the bedroom – and usually, like heterosexual intercourse, out of view of the public. It is focused on the act of sexual intercourse that, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the vast majority of individuals will never see another individual engaged in unless they’re a party to it.

The principle of out-of-sight and out-of-mind should be at play in this situation. One shouldn’t be judging another based on his or her disgust at what he or she imagines the other is doing in privacy. Any such judgment should be based on the individual’s merits as a contributing member of society. If engaging in a particular sexual act with another consenting adult in the privacy of one’s home is what helps keep the individual happy, and thus a productive contributor to society and its goals, then it makes only sense that the government not persecute or prosecute the individual for that.

To persecute a homosexual because government officials are personally repulsed by the thought of homosexual intercourse, which to the vast majority of them will remain merely an experience of the imagination, is unabashedly intolerant and disrespectful to individuals who, while homosexual in orientation, are nonetheless honest, hard-working, considerate and positive contributors to the community just like most other individuals in this world.

In choosing the road of persecution, Pavlov, or at the very least its current government, is adhering to an ill-conceived notion that an individual’s carnal acts in the bedroom are his or her one and only defining characteristic. It shouldn’t even be considered a defining characteristic in a meritorious society.

Yet the rest of the micronational world, as it pushes back against Pavlov’s unabashedly intolerant promulgations, must be keen to not lose the moral high ground which it currently holds on a solid footing.

In a well-intentioned editorial, Prince Freï of Lorenzburg characterizes Pavlov as an “Agent of Darkness,” suggesting that its decision to persecute homosexuals is akin to the persecutions of “classical tyrants from Emperor Nero to Henry VII and (arguably) Hitler and Stalin.” This imposition of a modified version of Godwin’s Law is dangerous and counterproductive hyperbole that undermines the moral high ground for the progressivists.

Pavlov and its government, having “jurisdiction” over an effective population consisting of a single-digit number of individuals (who grant that unenforceable jurisdiction voluntarily for as long as they’re interested in participating) cannot be compared to the Rome of Nero, Hitler’s Germany, or Stalin’s Soviet Russia nor the heinous atrocities committed by these deranged individuals.

Pavlov’s declaration against homosexuals, while disagreeable and repugnant, will not result in the next Holocaust and to suggest otherwise by equating the micronation’s leadership to Hitler is a blatant insult to the millions who died at the hands of Hitler or any of the other tyrants invoked by Prince Freï. No micronation, Pavlov included, has the capability to actually physically persecute its citizens or murder them en masse for being homosexual or anything else for that matter; certainly not on the scale of the tyrants. A micronation is but a momentary soapbox for its creator and a few close associates over the many years of their respective lifetimes after all.

The comment, while made during a passionate and sensible plea for tolerance, nonetheless shows a regrettable lack of perspective and awareness of what a micronation really is in the grand scheme of law and society. It only provides fodder to Pavlov to fling back. Given the strong feelings of society that remain over the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, it also provides Pavlov with a rallying point by which it can build support from others by shifting focus.

It is easy to get lost in emotion when speaking on a topic for which one has much passion. Prince Freï should not be held in disregard for his unwise comparison; however, we must always take that step back, think rationally about our comments and remember that we can excise the ignorant from our community without descending into ignorance ourselves.

Pavlov’s “ideological posturing” condemned

ANCOURT – In lamenting a deterioration of the diplomatic climate in the MicroWiki Community, Sebastian Linden has released a verbose religiously-charged statement condemning the parties he views as responsible for the split.

The statement, guised as a theocratic despatch-general published yesterday in Linden’s Rudno Courier, specifically targets Pavlov and its recent dispute with the intermicronational organization La MicroFrancophonie. The latter has discussed sanctions against Pavlov in the days since it announced a strict conservative position on homosexuality, resulting in Pavlov declaring La MicroFrancophonie to be a terrorist organization.

The spat traces back to a June 26 statement in which Pavlovian Foreign Affairs spokesperson Mr. Cazimir Qёrimbasy replied with disdain to the pro-gay marriage ruling of the United States Supreme Court, labelling the ruling as the forceful imposition of a progressivist agenda. “Any person engaging in homosexual activities, or voicing support for them, within the Pavlovian realm, with be persecuted … as an enemy of God, Emperor and Fatherland,” he declared, describing homosexual acts with terms such as “degeneracy, harlotry, and infidelity”.

In an arguably common example of invoking “God” or (widely-open to interpretation) scripture, the Pavlovian statement provoked Mr. Linden to invoke other parts of scripture in strong condemnation. Not so much as a condemnation of the micronation’s position on homosexuality, which Mr. Linden did not wish to debate, but rather of how Pavlov is conducting itself diplomatically. He described the Pavlovian manner as “prideful and vain” and “ideological posturing”.

Mr. Linden argued that Pavlov, as a faithful Christian micronation, should act with “meekness and fear” in its conveyance of Christian values (or rather its interpretation of such). “The world ought to know [Christians] by our love. Not by our crazed rants,” he charged, implying that Pavlov’s conduct will only alienate people from the faith. “I therefore urge the government and people of Pavlov to reconsider their public image and their conduct in the intermicronational sphere within the context of their very own faith and repent from the prideful vanity of their diplomatic behaviour thus far.”

While his personal scorn was clearly directed at Pavlov, Mr. Linden nonetheless sought to also temper the actions of La MicroFrancophonie’s membership. “The internal affairs of another nation, however much they may conflict with your own ideology, are not your concern … you are not the intermicronational rights police,” he opined. Mr. Linden encouraged the organization to forego the use of sanctions and blockades, which he described as ineffectual in micronationalism, suggesting that the organization “approach those you disagree with in a tender spirit.” Or otherwise, in accordance with Christian doctrine, to turn the other cheek on Pavlov or similar micronations and “ignore them”.