| Legal Question: Formal Apologies |
|
Although it is unusual for me to bring up a question regarding a law which has not yet passed; it is expected to pass within the next few days and will likely be in force by the time the court can respond.
My question is whether requiring a formal apology would violate the new Bill of Rights, which reads: 2. The freedom of speech, including the freedom of expression and the press. 3. The freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience. 4. The freedom of association, including the freedom of peaceful assembly. Assuming citizens do have the freedom to think as they would like, they also have the freedom to not be sorry, to not be regretful and to not show contrition. If a court specifically requires citizens to show remorse ... to apologize, I would argue that the court is wrongfully robbing citizens of their own freedom to think independently. A free society is not one where a court compels its citizens what to think. Moreover, the idea of a formal apology misunderstands the purpose of a court - not to manage people's remorse, but to enforce the law. Whether one is remorseful or not may have relevance to rehabilitative justice (the parole board) but it is not relevant to the exercise of traditional justice. HCLQ1502
- 23.02.15 -
Petitioner
Unibot
Presiding Justices
Aramanchovia, Farengeto, Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Awe
The Court has agreed to hear this legal question. Any and all interested parties will be granted at least 72 hours to submit an amicus brief. HCLQ1502
- 19.03.15 -
Petitioner
Unibot
Presiding Justices
Aramanchovia, Farengeto, Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Awe
Although it is unusual for me to bring up a question regarding a law which has not yet passed; it is expected to pass within the next few days and will likely be in force by the time the court can respond. My question is whether requiring a formal apology would violate the new Bill of Rights, which reads: 2. The freedom of speech, including the freedom of expression and the press. 3. The freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience. 4. The freedom of association, including the freedom of peaceful assembly. Assuming citizens do have the freedom to think as they would like, they also have the freedom to not be sorry, to not be regretful and to not show contrition. If a court specifically requires citizens to show remorse ... to apologize, I would argue that the court is wrongfully robbing citizens of their own freedom to think independently. A free society is not one where a court compels its citizens what to think. Moreover, the idea of a formal apology misunderstands the purpose of a court - not to manage people's remorse, but to enforce the law. Whether one is remorseful or not may have relevance to rehabilitative justice (the parole board) but it is not relevant to the exercise of traditional justice. Majority Opinion
Armanchovia, Farengeto, Hopolis
After careful deliberation, the High Court issues the following judgement in response to the Legal Question submitted by Unibot. It is in the opinion of the High Court that contrary to what the Petitioner has proposed, calling upon the Accused to apologise for wrongdoings as a penalty for offences committed is not contrary to the Bill of Rights, nor does it violate an individual's right to thought, opinion, belief or conscience. In stating the above, the Court has resolved that the individual in question must have been found guilty of an offence and ordered by the Court to issue an apology as a penalty. In doing so, the Court believes that this arises as a result of the principle of 'cause and consequence', that if an individual had committed an offence in contravention of the laws of the South Pacific, the individual in question should expect to be tried and penalised by the judicial system. While the Court does recognise and seek to uphold rights and liberties of the individual as protected by the Bill of Rights, the Court must also reconcile that it has been charged with the responsibility of the imposition and upholding of justice and elements of law pertaining to crime and punishment in the South Pacific. Herewith lies the point where a line should be drawn as to how far-reaching the individual's liberties are, and to what extent the Court should seek to penalise the individual. While the Court does acknowledge that the individual has the 'freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience' as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, the Court resolves that this freedom accorded to individuals is subjected to reasonable limits, particularly so in regards to the fact that the individual, having applied for citizenship in the South Pacific, is subjected to the restrictions of the following clause: Quote:Article 1, Section 1.2, Charter The above clause implies that the rights of the individual, as protected by the Bill of Rights, is subjected to them fulfilling obligations that are tied to the holding of citizenship in the South Pacific, which among others, would include the respect for the laws of the region as well as the obligation to carry out penalties enforced by the judicial system. In doing so, the individual is understood to have temporarily forfeited their rights to the freedoms stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as the freedom of the individual is only in force insofar as the individual fulfilling their mutual obligation as a citizen, to respect the laws of the region. However, this does not remove the right of the individual to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial, as these rights are enshrined in the Judicial Code of the South Pacific, as part of the principles of the Court and the ethics of Justices. The Court also emphasises that in meting penalties to the individual, the aim of the Court should be to rehabilitate and not to punish, to correct and not to convict. Thus, apologies as a form of penalty are currently only meted out for Conduct Violations, and depending on the discretion of the Justices, for Vexatious Charges. The Penal Code emphasises that wherein the Justices have discretion in deciding the appropriate penalties, 'the sentence must be proportionate to the offence'. Thus, the Court believes that lenient forms of punishment such as issuing an apology is proportionate, appropriate and sufficient for mild conduct violations and vexatious charges, as these crimes are understood not to cause significant harm to others or discord in the community, as compared to other crimes stipulated in the Penal Code. The above should be subjected to consideration of the Justices as to the previous criminal history of the individual, the intent of the individual in committing this offence, and the likelihood of the individual to reoffend. The Court, at the discretion of the Justices, can also increase the severity of penalties should the individual decline to comply with the orders of the Court to carry out the punishment, so long as it is not excessive or motivated by inherent bias in nature.
I know I am not allowed to speak in here, however that is jus stupid. This does violate your rights you CAN NOT be forced to make an apologue, it breaks every basic human right.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
I would like to request an appeal for this decision --
Quote:While the Court does recognise and seek to uphold rights and liberties of the individual as protected by the Bill of Rights, the Court must also reconcile that it has been charged with the responsibility of the imposition and upholding of justice and elements of law pertaining to crime and punishment in the South Pacific. Whether someone is apologetic or not is not a matter of justice, crime or punishment. It serves no faculty of regional security or the rule of law to force someone to utter an apology. No consequence to the region's state of law or security is affected by an apology, only the freedom of individuals. When freedom is curtailed unnecessarily, the Bill of Rights can be said to be contravened without necessity and without just cause to do so. Quote:While the Court does acknowledge that the individual has the 'freedom of thought, including the freedom of belief, opinion and conscience' as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, the Court resolves that this freedom accorded to individuals is subjected to reasonable limits It should also be said that the 'reasonable limitations' clause was explictly removed from the Bill of Rights to prevent the Justices from continuing to echo it as a justication for protecting laws that curtail freedom of speech and thought. On the contrary, I would argue that the very clause that the justices have quoted is proof of the exact opposite conclusion: Quote:Article 1, Section 1.2, Charter A 'forced apology' contradicts the constitution; all citizens shall in 'good faith' fullfill their obligations to The South Pacific. Requiring a citizen to give an apology that they do not believe in, is tantamount to forcing a citizen to lie. Such a decision requires citizens to act in 'bad faith' to the obligations present, not good faith with said obligations. Finally, Quote:The Court also emphasises that in meting penalties to the individual, the aim of the Court should be to rehabilitate and not to punish, to correct and not to convict. How and in what way can a 'forced apology' rehabilitate a subject? There doesn't seem to be any merit to that argument. Rehabilitation cannot be involuntary. That is where this ruling goes from wrong to scary - forced rehabilitation and coerced exchanges between subjects and the region under the guise of "fulfilling regional obligations" and "reasonable limitations". Perhaps the most simple and beautiful truth of any demonstrably democratic society is that nobody can stop you from thinking; I very much doubt it was ever the intention of our constitution to seek such an obligation against one's personal freedom at the expense of an open and free mind. Thank you and I look forward to hearing said appeal. HCLA1501
-27.03.05-
Petitioner
Unibot
Appeal Justice
Awe
The High Court will hear this appeal. A response should be released by 2AM EDT on Saturday, 28 March 2015. Legal Appeals have been designated a new category code LA, and this case has been assigned the case number HCLA1501. The appeal will heard by Justice of the High Court, Awe.
Thank you.
HCLA1501
-27.03.05-
Petitioner
Unibot
Appeal Justice
Awe
Having carefully considered the Appeal by Unibot in response to HCLQ1502, the High Court Appeal Justice issues the following judgement. On the matter of the absolutility of the freedom of speech and thought as the Petitioner has proposed, it is in the opinion of the Court that while these freedoms are protected in the Bill of Rights, and despite the removal of the 'reasonable restrictions' clause, it is through the use of common sense, that the Justice believes every member of the community does possess, that there are still inherent restrictions on what one can or should say. This is particularly so with regards to hate or offensive speech, threats or otherwise the repeated use of insinuating remarks that is derogatory or may cause offense to another player or group of people, of which the Administrative Team possesses the absolute authority to pursue further actions, including bans, as a preventive measure before the matter escalates further, as has been enshrined in Administrative Policy. Furthermore, upon further consideration, the Court believes that the current law for conduct violations does not force an apology, but instead allows the individual to return should (s)he apologise. However, the Court also resolves that an immediate banning from the region is rather excessive and disproportionate to the offence. In light of the above, the Court resolves that any Conduct Violations, defined as a violation of in-game NationStates rules, should be resolved by the appropriate authorities: the Administrative Team if the offence is conducted on the forums, and the NationStates Moderation if the offence is conducted in-game. With regards to Regional Message Board spam or 'adspam', the Court resolves that the Delegate possesses the authority to suppress such posts and eject the relevant nation as appropriate, should the Delegate see fit to do so. The Court also recommends that the Assembly strike down Articles 5.1.10 and 5.2.2 of the Code of Laws, thus relinquishing the power of the Court on conduct violations to the appropriate authorities, and the meting of penalties in accordance with the appropriate documents, as stated above. Notwithstanding the above, the High Court still retains the power to hear appeals on excessive moderation in accordance with Article 5, Section 5 of the Charter, in relation to offences conducted on the forums, whereas appeals can be made to NationStates Moderation in relation to offences conducted in-game, which the Court has no jurisdiction over. In accordance with the law, this ruling is final, and no further appeals can be made. Thank you.
Was the majority of this ruling even necessary? The petitioner was asking about the requirement of convicted parties to issue apologies. Why would the Court address Rules Violations or recommend that the Assembly take action? How are they relevant to this particular ruling?
While I respect the good intentions of the Court, I am concerned this was unknowingly used to address issues that, while certainly important to legal debate, had nothing to do with the question at hand. The Court should issue recommendations to the Assembly when relevant to the question it is addressing. While Rules Violations were mentioned in the original ruling, that was only done in support of a broader argument, not as an answer to the main question or as a matter central to the broader situation of our laws. 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 "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |