| Definition of "Security Threat" |
Does anybody feel it is our responsibility to respond to the issue in this thread? I am thinking not. One of us should possibly respond to the thread at least, seeing as Tsu has requested our opinion.
Interesting point, the Charter seems to allow the Cabinet to remove citizenship for being a security threat, but it appears silent on this being a legitimate reason to reject citizenship in the first place from my reading. It could be argued that rejecting someone for this reason is actually acting against the Charter. I'm not sure it is the time to point that out though.
I've been busy with work the last day or so but I'll try and look at this tonight.
I don't think it should be the Courts defining what a Security Threat is, that is the prerogative of the Assembly.
I have to agree, this is not the court's jurisdiction.
I'll sit this one out as non-presiding (save's me some reading!).
I propose something along the lines of:
HCLQ1504
- 14.03.15 -
Petitioner
Todd McCloud
Presiding Justices
Aramanchovia, Awe, Farengeto
Non-Presiding Justice
Hopolis
To this end, I am asking for clarification on the use of "security threat". Does "security threat" mean a citizen who is in clear threat to the in-game delegacy who must be dealt with swifty in the interest of in-game security, as defined and assumed in previous instances? Or has this definition changed to the point where it is acceptable to apply this to non-citizens seeking citizenship who happen to be disliked by a member or members of the cabinet? If the definition has changed, I would like to see when and where it did, because thus far I have not been able to locate this definition change as it is outlined in law. Finally, if the definition is the former and not the latter, I ask for an end to the practice of having the cabinet determine citizenship and return that right to the proper departments. Thanks in advance! Majority Opinion
Aramanchovia, Awe, Farengeto
After careful deliberation by the Court Justices, it is in the opinion of the Court that the Justices are unable to dispense a Legal Opinion on this question as a result of ambiguities present in the law. Therefore, the Petitioner should refer this to the Assembly for clarification. However, the Court believes that in declaring a nation a security threat, the nation should, based on past history in the South Pacific and/or other regions, be likely to subvert the legitimate government of a region or otherwise cause harm to a region. In doing so, the Cabinet and Assembly should consider the desire of the nation to avoid causing harm to the South Pacific, as well as the recency and extent of past actions. The mechanism of a security threat should not be used for personal or political leverage by members of the Cabinet and/or Assembly, in order to preserve and uphold the democratic values of the South Pacific.
That seems acceptable.
Yeah sounds ok to me too. Think some people will query the "recency of actions" bit, but that can be discussed by the assembly if they have issues with it.
I think we've misinterpreted the intent of the original question. The intent of said question was not to define what a security threat is, but what it should be used for.
I note there is a part two to this now, which is basically what I identified in the second paragraph of my first post. Can either discuss it here or start a new topic (probably easier).
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |