I need to clarify that this was a tentative agreement, fully dependent on the approval of both the Cabinet and the CSS, as opposing fronts of this conflict. I immediately consulted those members who were awake at the time, and consulted the rest when they were online the following day. There was a unanimous agreement (my vote included) that the agreement was not in the best interest of the Coalition.

I really do appreciate the role of the North Pacific in this conflict, but Hileville was not compromising towards us. He may have been towards TNP, but whenever we approached him, he was adamanat that there would be no going back. Based on the extensive conversation I had with him the second night of the coup, which included an admission that there had been no threat to coup by any admin, I have to conclude that he did not have any intention to restore the Coalition, at the time.

On to the subject of amnesty and reconciliation. I have had time to listen to the different positions, and my own has been evolving. I still believe that those from the Cabinet who did not defect should face a fair trial. However, I do recognise that the region calls for reconciliation. I believe that the right way to ensure that would be to grant amnesty only to those Cabinet members to acknowledge their role in the coup and express a willingness to be a positive force in whatever reforms we consider. Yes, we want to reintegrate those citizens back into our community, but we also need to make sure they understand there is a better path towards enacting change. This is not about shaming, this is simply about ensuring they commit to respecting our democracy.

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

Reply

I think that's a fair conclusion; amnesty attached to acknowledgement of culpability.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

I think that would be a mistake, Kringalia. The region has enforced the law via "amnesty + acknowledgement of culpability" before: Brave Little Toaster - and, of course, most of the people who supported Brave Little Toaster, once again, were involved with this coup. We saw what happened with BLT: Belschaft promptly admitted culpability and the Assembly, feeling sympathetic, recalled him from his positions, but did not pursue him in court. After a few months passed, Belschaft then claimed he did not do anything wrong with BLT - so the Cabinet banned him for being a Security Threat - and the Assembly upheld the ban, especially after learning Belschaft had attempted to blackmail the delegate. Now Belschaft has assisted Hileville in couping the region - once more asking for amnesty provided he acknowledges his guilt - and then what? A few months later he'll claim he did nothing wrong. His coup wasn't really a coup, "I negotiated the peace deal!" etc.

At some point, if we want a stable region, somebody has to start taking real responsibility for their actions. The Rule of Sympathy has not been a strong alternative to the Rule of Law here. We have to stop administered justice through some psycho "healing circle" where everyone the region feels sorry for shares the blame for their offenses with the people who the region doesn't particularly like and all of the people that the region doesn't particularly like faces some sort of weird Robocop style justice - "he said he's sorry, that's good enough" has not exactly worked for us. Sympathy simply doesn't provide the consistency that the law can in sentencing and administrating justice.

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 09:00 PM by Unibot.)

Reply

Uni, I am opposed to any sort of amnesty for those who did not defect before the end of the coup, and I would be glad to see fair trials held. Not a show. An actual fair trial. But if one must be given, I think an honest apology and having them work in good faith with the reforms would show that they really mean to make amends. Let them work towards their rehabilitation and once again become good members of the community.

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

Reply

Uni, I am opposed to any sort of amnesty for those who did not defect before the end of the coup, and I would be glad to see fair trials held. Not a show. An actual fair trial. But if one must be given, I think an honest apology and having them work in good faith with the reforms would show that they really mean to make amends. Let them work towards their rehabilitation and once again become good members of the community.

Alright, and I suppose I'm being unfair attributing the same lack of sympathy to everyone involved as I am to Belschaft - Belschaft has a long history of contravening TSP law, whereas some of those involved did not.  I also think you're quite right to say fair trial - the Milograd trial was a completely gong show*, despite how any of us feel about Milograd - and any of those facing sentencing in the future ought to be given a fair trial with proper legal representation and a civil, level-headed and impartial court.

* For example, Milograd hadn't operated the offending account but this was never considered during the trial. In doing so, it allowed Mallorea and Riva and JAL to pursue membership in the South Pacific later on, (very frustrating indeed) while Milograd faced punishment for not only his actions but also Mall's and JAL's. 

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 09:14 PM by Unibot.)

Reply

And Kringalia:

2. All individuals involved in the forum move and the Transitional Government will receive a general amnesty for their  these actions, conditional on good behaviour and acknowledgement of culpability, and revocable by the Assembly at any time during the next six months.

Otherwise you're pardoning them for everything they've ever done, ever.

---

 

It should be said that the Parole Board was created to act as a fairer deciding body on matters of character and reform; as opposed to using the Assembly. And that a general period of six months is far, far leaner than what is offered to those under parole:

4. If parole is granted, the regional and/or forum ban shall be revoked and the individual shall be allowed to reside in The South Pacific.
5. After six months of residency, the individual may apply for citizenship, albeit with a prohibition on holding office.
6. While on parole, the special parole board can decide at any time, by majority vote, to revoke an individual’s parole; this decision should consider the security of the region and the contributions of the individual to the region.
7. After six months of citizenship, the individual may apply to the parole board for the prohibition on holding office to be lifted. The parole board can grant this motion, provided a majority of the board supports – and in doing so, the individual will no longer be held under any conditions of parole.

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 09:30 PM by Unibot.)

Reply

Alright, and I suppose I'm being unfair attributing the same lack of sympathy to everyone involved as I am to Belschaft - Belschaft has a long history of contravening TSP law, whereas some of those involved did not. 

Belschaft is also the reason, quite obviously with Hile's direct consent, that The Coalition is back in control of TSP. What's more, he did all this while being fully aware that he's status as a "Security Threat" will almost certainly not be revoked and he might even be put on trial and officially banned.

I'd say Belschaft has displayed an extraordinary amount of personal courage and sacrifice, hell even sangfroid, while facing the very real and very likely possibility that not only will he not be thanked, he will likely be hunted as a criminal.

I don't think you're lack of sympathy towards Bel and the others is just unfair, Unibot, I think it's downright spiteful.

Reply

Idk, just some scattered thoughts...

The Truth

The truth is that this region has not been at peace with itself for a long, long time. Not since perhaps the few summer months after Sedge's coup have we experienced a prolonged period of internal peace. Although it is possible that some of those periods may have occurred during my less active months and years.

The truth is that we will not find peace while looking for people to blame and "hold accountable." While I agree with the many false equivalents in this thread, the ends do not always justify the means, I believe this "coup" saw a number of well-meaning citizens attempt to create a better region. While the intent does not always match the impact, it also cannot be fully ignored. If it is the wish of this region that former Cabinet members shall face trial, they have that democratic right, but I do not think it will bring us the peace we seek.

The Reconciliation

Our common ally is ourselves. Our common enemy is ourselves.

Reconciliation gives us peace. Reconciliation also means actually forgiving people. It means digging deep inside ourselves and letting ourselves forget. Reconciliation isn't always easy. Reconciliation lets some people off the hook, and as such, reconciliation is not always just.

But if reconciliation is what we want, I think we have to move forward. It might not be possible to have both peace and justice. I'm not telling people which to pick, or which they should pick, but that we might have to.

Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 09:46 PM by HEM.)

Reply

It should be said that the Parole Board was created to act as a fairer deciding body on matters of character and reform; as opposed to using the Assembly. And that a general period of six months is far, far leaner than what is offered to those under parole

Are you saying the Parole Board should be used to handle amnesty?

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

Reply

I'm saying instead of "amnesty" offer a plea deal.

1. All those who contributed materially to the Transitional Government who defected prior to the time of its collapse (Feb 2 14:00 EST) shall be offered general amnesty for crimes related to the illegal forum move and the Transitional Government.
2. All those who contributed materially to the Transitional Government not subject to s.1 shall be charged with the crimes of Treason, Organised Crime and a Miscarriage of Justice.
3. Those subject to s.2 who admit guilt to all three of the above crimes shall be granted a plea deal which in turn constitutes a reduction of one year in sentencing, allowing them to immediately apply for parole subject to the discretion of the parole board and the conventional parole process notwithstanding s.3.1 of the Code of Laws.
4. Those subject to s.2 who claim innocence to one, two or all of the aforementioned crimes - and in doing so, reject said plea deal - shall receive a fair trial in the High Court for the crimes accused.

This is a stronger procedure because, 

• It's a process consistent with how we already administer correctional justice: 6 months for citizenship, 12 months for public office. 
  
• What the parties are admitting guilt to is clear, whereas it is unspecified in the current proposal.
  
• The current proposal suggests a quasi-parole system without following the parole system.
  
• People can still fight their case in court if they wish to do so under this system.
  
• The parole board will be a fairer administrator of correctional justice to the individuals and the third parties involved. 
  

(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016, 11:35 PM by Unibot.)

Reply