A Statement on Right to Life / League of Conservative Nations Relations

I remember when I first encountered The League of Conservative Nations (the LCN), it was a fledgling region of four nations. I distinctly, among all of those early days of the LCN, recall one particular telegram conversation with Adawn (whose account has since been handed over to Quebecshire). As I recall it, he told me about how he hoped to one day have a region that would be a space for conservatives to gather. He especially noted the pro-life character of the LCN -- he proudly codified the region's pro-life stance into the World Factbook Entry, touted it on the RMB, and even pinned the Pro-Life International Dispatch long before we had formally admitted the LCN. In short, the League of Conservative Nations was founded as a profoundly pro-life alliance.

Fast forward to today. The regional delegate, San carlos islands, formally announced his support for an odious and evil resolution entitled "Access to Abortion." Designed for the purposes of spiting pro-lifers, the resolution sought to define the unborn out of their personhood and publicly fund abortion clinics. By some incredible mental gymnastics, San Carlos Islands claimed that the resolution "is actually the pro-life option." The region of Right to Life, first and foremost, calls this stance out for how ridiculous it truly is. A resolution that dehumanizes and devalues the lives of a whole class of people cannot be considered pro-life. Were this our only grievance, however, Right to Life would not be making a statement at this time. We partner and work with regions that do not share our pro-life stance all the time.

But, sadly, the situation is far worse. In that very post, San Carlos Islands called the pro-life operations of the Right to Life Army "undemocratic and degenerate" for taking direct action to prevent an evil resolution from making it to the voting floor. We are disappointed that the Director of Foreign Affairs for the League of Conservative Nations, a vital regional ally, would slander Right to Life for following through on our pledge to oppose anti-life World Assembly legislation. And it is, we should clarify, slander -- Right to Life was left with no other option, perhaps because a select group of powerful World Assembly legislators and superdelegates fought to push this resolution down our collective throats. We are eminently disappointed in San Carlos Islands' statement. It evinces a profound lack of respect (rooted in deliberate and obvious falsehoods) for the pro-life commitment that to which this region will always stand fast. Were these our only grievances, however, we still would probably not be making this statement.

When I attempted to respond San Carlos Islands' falsehoods about our region and the resolution at-vote, First Consul Quebecshire almost immediately suppressed my post and ordered me to delete it, supposedly in line with a policy on inter-regional advertisement. While Right to Life respects the rights of our allies to create their own RMB policies and interpret them as they please (though regional citizens have noted the strange legal justification Quebecshire offered), it seems clear that the policy was used unjustly in this case to suppress an important message from a regional ally. I expressed obvious discontent about the suppression, but Right to Life was given no ability to publicly defend ourselves -- when our region was directly attacked. Instead, I was asked to lodge my complaints privately to a diplomat. Right to Life was attacked publicly, not privately, so Right to Life was, needless to say, disappointed. But even then, we are not getting to the crux of the issue.

San carlos islands has a long history of deeply unsettling opinions and downright awful comments. Our region -- and several others -- offered him a chance to move past that era. And in some respects, he did, and we are proud of see some of the change he has gone through. Having said that, Right to Life still takes issue with some comments, sometimes intended as jokes, made by San Carlos Islands. For instance, on July 10, we have evidence of his making a crude, offensive, and insensitive joke regarding the Catholic Church's sexual abuse crisis. Some things are matters for jokes. The abuse of minors is not.

Similarly, Right to Life has evidence of several insensitive, childish, and downright awful jokes made by San Carlos Islands during the Access to Abortion fiasco. These jokes are well-known to our region by this point -- they included references to an "Abortion Doctor Goose" and memes that called for "cutting up babies." While we are certain these comments were made in jest, that goes not excuse them. Some things are matters for jokes. Abortion and the pain it causes -- both to preborn children and to their mothers -- are not.

Thirdly, Right to Life takes severe umbrage with some of the expressed real-life political views of San Carlos Islands, who has repeatedly denied that Muslims in China face any persecution. China's treatment of the Uyghurs is classified as a crime against humanity by the US Holocaust Museum and includes forced labour, indoctrination, and the separation of Uyghur children into "re-education camps." Right to Life does not normally take offence at the political beliefs of its allied government officials, but anyone who condones "re-education camps" run by a totalitarian anti-life regime bent on denying the religious freedom of Muslims cannot have our support.

Our fourth concern relating to San Carlos Islands' personal conduct concerns his use of the word "f-ggot" in his Discord status until recently. For context, "f-ggot" is an anti-gay slur referencing the bundle of sticks upon which gay people were burned at the stake. It is a term I have been called many times, mostly by people who bullied me on account of my own sexual orientation. It is a term that has no place in civil discourse -- regardless of your opinions on homosexuality. San Carlos Islands knows as much. When I and several other LGBT+ members of the Core of Catholics (a Catholic gathering place on Discord) told him to remove the word from his status, he did not listen to us. Instead, he left the server and didn't come back. Only after Quebecshire advised him to did San Carlos Islands remove the word from his status. That is not conduct becoming of a decent human being, let alone a Director of Foreign Affairs.

While Right to Life wants to give San Carlos Islands the benefit of the doubt, we frankly would not be surprised to find even more objectionable content upon a deeper dive. Again, this is not the behaviour of a Director of Foreign Affairs or a WA delegate. It represents a tremendous attack on civil discourse, on individual citizens of Right to Life, and on our region writ-large. His conduct cannot be tolerated, and we do not tolerate it. To that end, Right to Life is asking that San carlos islands be removed from his position as the Director of Foreign Affairs and as World Assembly Delegate.

We maintain relations with many regions, some of whom we vehemently disagree with. But we will not partner with regions led by unhinged individuals who use slurs, deny human rights abuses, joke about the abuse of minors, or joke about the killing of pre-born children. Similarly, we will not partner with regions governed by individuals who call us "degenerate" or who refer to us as a "gang," and we will not partner with regions who can't even afford us the courtesy of a public reply to lies spread about us. If the LCN will not change course, Right to Life may have to. Should the LCN refuse to remove San Carlos Islands, we will have to seriously evaluate our future diplomatic status, up to and including the status of our embassy. Right to Life will reiterate that we do not want to do this -- it is our firm hope that the LCN corrects course quickly.

United massachusetts
President, Right to Life