| Removal of Belschaft's citizenship |
THE CABINET OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
Statement on the Removal of the Citizenship of Belschaft The Cabinet is an institution entrusted with great power, and throughout the years we have always worked towards the good of the South Pacific, ensuring the welfare of all nations and the continued security of the region. While this often involves rewarding and enjoyable tasks that clearly show how the region benefits, sometimes we find ourselves in situations that require taking difficult decisions, and despite our personal preferences, those decisions need to be taken, if the safety of the region is to be ensured. On 18 October 2014 it came to our attention that Belschaft led a plot called Operation Brave Little Toaster an attempt to unduly influence regional elections by importing votes, due to his desire to overturn certain government policies and to remove Unibot from the Cabinet in the November General Elections. When confronted, he accepted his actions and apologised. Despite repeated calls for treason charges, the Cabinet limited itself to recalling Belschaft from all his government positions, since we believed that his apology was sincere, and his recalls were enough punishment. However, in recent days Belschaft has returned to political activity and denied any wrongdoing. While he has justified himself claiming his actions were a legitimate investigation of the possibility that Unibot was elected through fraud, there are no records of him approaching the Election Commission, the High Court or the Committee for State Security, nor do his suspicions justify the fact that he organised a plot to commit the very conduct that he was acting against, that he recklessly endangered the integrity of the region, or that he planned to abuse his position as Chief Justice to repeal the Treaty with the Rejected Realms, due to his personal opposition to it. This is unacceptable behaviour from a Former Delegate and displays an extreme lack of respect for the South Pacific and its democracy, due process and freedom of speech, values that are at the very core of our institutionality. Everyone has a right to be upset and politically opposed to other citizens, but acting upon that opposition in a destructive manner, that could even threaten the sovereignty of the region, is unacceptable, and supposes a very serious threat to our security. In view of the fact that his continued presence is a risk to the security of the region, and pursuant to the authority vested in us by the Charter, the Cabinet has unanimously resolved to revoke the status of Belschaft as a Citizen of the Coalition of the South Pacific. We regret the nature of this decision, and despite public pressure to take it, our discussions focused on the legal and security considerations of this measure, not on its potential popularity or lack thereof. It is our sincere belief that, while difficult, this decision is in the best interests of the South Pacific. Thank you, The Cabinet of the South Pacific
I'm just curious why it wasn't allowed to go to trial.
Why what wasn't allowed to go to trial?
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
The case against Belschaft. It doesn't feel like the proper channels were utilized for justice to be served.
This was not an judicial action. It was a determination made based on security grounds.
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 (02-19-2015, 01:47 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: This was not an judicial action. It was a determination made based on security grounds. The wording of the statement suggests that he was banned for past wrongdoing, not because he is an active security threat. I'm under no illusions that Belschaft is innocent of what he has been accused of, but it seems like, in this case, justice would have been better served in the Courts.
Just for the record, Belschaft has not been banned. He is still free to have nations in the region, he is free to remain an active participant in this forum, and as a resident he is fully covered by the provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the self-defense clause.
I assume Belschaft intends to submit an appeal to the Assembly, and he is fully within his rights to do so. We have facilitated that by giving him a special Resident mask, which grants him posting rights in the Assembly and High Court sections. I say this was a security-based action because that is exactly what it was. The Cabinet cannot ban people from the region, and would never pretend to do that. Bans can only be given by forum administration or the High Court, and we fully intend to respect that. Our statement says that, based on his past wrongdoing, and indications that he might be willing to act in the same way again, we deemed him to be a threat to the security of this region. The very fact that the Cabinet did not vote on his removal in October 2014, when OBT was first revealed, shows that this is not a decision that we took lightly, and we made it seeing that there was no other choice. 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
This was not the right choice when they was a pending trial.
Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.
Is there a reason the CSS was bypassed on this issue (to my knowledge anyway, I know I wasn't consulted in any case) and the decision was made by the cabinet? I'm a little concerned about the processes around how this decision was made, but will not comment more for now until I look into it a bit more (as I am also a justice now, I want to be sure of what has happened, as I can see this potentially being appealled there too if it didn't follow the processes in place).
(02-19-2015, 02:15 AM)Aramanchovia Wrote: Is there a reason the CSS was bypassed on this issue (to my knowledge anyway, I know I wasn't consulted in any case) and the decision was made by the cabinet? I'm a little concerned about the processes around how this decision was made, but will not comment more for now until I look into it a bit more (as I am also a justice now, I want to be sure of what has happened, as I can see this potentially being appealled there too if it didn't follow the processes in place). The Cabinet has the ability to remove citizenship. The CSS can declare a state of emergency for the in-game dynamics.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |