Broosking: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Broosking''' is the act of recruiting a prospective citizen of [[Talossa]] into a particular [[political party]]. It is widely regarded as unethical, though it is not illegal. To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, | '''Broosking''' is the act of recruiting a prospective citizen of [[Talossa]] into a particular [[political party]]. It is widely regarded as unethical, though it is not illegal. To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, has been considered to be broosking and is strongly frowned-upon by many. | ||
The term "Broosking" has as its origin a typographical error made by [[Alexandreu Davinescu]] when documenting the practice, | The term "Broosking" has as its origin a typographical error made by Sir [[Alexandreu Davinescu]] when documenting the practice: | ||
<blockquote>Some may question my seemingly arbitrary choice of terminologies. When first writing this bill, I chose a name from history to represent the illegal act of pre-citizenship recruitment in an effort to ease discussion: the public beating of Senator Charles Sumner by Senator Preston Brooks on the floor of the United States Senate in 1856. Pre-citizenship recruitment is as belabouring and dangerous to democracy as a caning in a house of legislature, so it seemed appropriate. But during drafting, my staff remarked that she kept wanting to type "broosking" instead of "brooksing." So "broosking" it became.<ref>http://talossa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hopper&action=display&thread=2268&page=1</ref></blockquote> | |||
==Evolution of the Practice== | |||
Beginning in {{year|2020}}, [[Free Democrats]] [[Senator]] [[Eovart Grischun]] and [[Seneschal]] Dama [[Miestră Schivă]] altered their approach to the practice while interviewing a prospective citizen, arguing that it wasn't unethical to discuss partisan policies or controversial laws, even if it might influence the immigration process. "Broosking," wrote Grischun, "is the active recruiting of prospectives by political parties. Nothing more."<ref>https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=447.msg3126#msg3126</ref> | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
[[Category:Politics]] | [[Category:Politics]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:41, 21 August 2020
Broosking is the act of recruiting a prospective citizen of Talossa into a particular political party. It is widely regarded as unethical, though it is not illegal. To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, has been considered to be broosking and is strongly frowned-upon by many.
The term "Broosking" has as its origin a typographical error made by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu when documenting the practice:
Some may question my seemingly arbitrary choice of terminologies. When first writing this bill, I chose a name from history to represent the illegal act of pre-citizenship recruitment in an effort to ease discussion: the public beating of Senator Charles Sumner by Senator Preston Brooks on the floor of the United States Senate in 1856. Pre-citizenship recruitment is as belabouring and dangerous to democracy as a caning in a house of legislature, so it seemed appropriate. But during drafting, my staff remarked that she kept wanting to type "broosking" instead of "brooksing." So "broosking" it became.[1]
Evolution of the Practice
Beginning in 2020/XLI, Free Democrats Senator Eovart Grischun and Seneschal Dama Miestră Schivă altered their approach to the practice while interviewing a prospective citizen, arguing that it wasn't unethical to discuss partisan policies or controversial laws, even if it might influence the immigration process. "Broosking," wrote Grischun, "is the active recruiting of prospectives by political parties. Nothing more."[2]