| Removal of Belschaft's citizenship |
(02-28-2015, 04:07 PM)Escade Wrote: Distortilla (I wish you would ask to have your account name fixed), what the Cabinet + Assembly did was address a person who attempted to use underhanded means to remove his political opponents. Do link me to your thoughts on the evidence and accusations against Belschaft, I just want to match up whether this is another of yours "damned if they did, damned if they didn't" reactions. Hi again Escade, good to see you back and active My contention is not with the guilt or otherwise of Belschaft, but rather with the mechanism that has been used to deal with his actions. The very fact that we are having this discussion signals that there are misgivings about a clause whose implementation has caused such an argument If such powers are to be made watertight for future use then it is imperative that we strive to iron out such matters so that their use is above reproach and criticism - to improve our environment we have to acknowledge where the flaws exist and seek to correct them.
Your missing the point Ditortilla. The reversal of citizenship removal needs 75% support. Failure to meet 75% against does not mean the appeal passes.
I still have to be a little careful with what I say because of the possibility of future legal action that may relate to Belschaft. However, I've wanted to say something so now is possibly the best time.
The number of citizens that exist is very small (currently 45) and in such a small group all politics tends to be personal politics. If we're not careful the fall out from the decision in respect of Belschaft - which was disagreed with by a substantial minority - could cause more harm than any internal risk posed by a citizen ever could. To that end I think we probably need to lay the ghosts of this to rest and move on. I still think the ends don't justify the means and I hope if such a situation were to occur again it might be dealt with differently. Yes, the Cabinet was using a power granted by the Charter but personally I still think formal charges would have been the best way to have resolved this issue, not least as a trial would have drawn a clearer line under the matter. However, that wasn't the way it played out. I think we all now need to let this incident become a footnote in the history of TSP. If people aren't happy with the actions of the Cabinet... well, that's why we have elections. The people will call and democracy will answer. For the record, while I disagreed with this one decision I still think Tsu is doing an excellent job as delegate and the same for the Cabinet. If I may modestly say, we're a pretty great bunch of people - welcoming, passionate, committed and devastatingly beautiful/handsome - and as spring approaches (or autumn for those of you in the other hemisphere although for those of you on the equator itself I have no idea what season it is) we should probably try and find some things that unite us not divide us.
Hear, hear!
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
Is it no longer possible to charge Belschaft with a crime now that we've removed his citizenship? Did we actually cripple our ability to file charges against him with this rash action?
A court clarification is in progress, once it goes through I plan to file charges.
Also, Lady Hopolis I appreciate your vote. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
What happens if a trial were allowed and the charges are thrown out or, more embarrassing yet, Belschaft is found innocent?
The outcome of a trial is decided by the Justices. If a case is dismissed or they should find a defendant innocent, than that's that. Whether or not it appeases public opinion is irrelevant.
Yes, but the Security Threat declaration will still stand, is my point. It will stand even if the Justices have proven innocence.
Yes.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |