Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 03-12-2017, 12:52 PM

(03-12-2017, 12:26 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: After all, what really would be the goal of a forum ban that couldn't be accomplished with government involvement bans?

Frankly, we've seen just how well this political shunning model works. And that's to say, it doesn't. There's a dissonance when you see a person gallivanting around Discord, spam forums, and roleplaying, but they're not allowed to run for office or be in the Assembly. They build friends, especially new people, who start to demand that laws be changed, orders be repealed, etc. Suddenly the people who put the "government involvement ban" in place are undemocratic despots. Orders are rescinded, laws do get repealed, and then we're in a situation where the person ends up supporting a coup down the road ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

**Belschaft** · 03-12-2017, 12:59 PM

Why exactly do we need a system that doesn't involve due process or the courts? This seems to be a case of "They haven't broken any of our laws/we don't have sufficient proof under our laws" - if there isn't sufficient basis to ban someone via the legal process, why exactly would we want to produce a new process to get around it?

I'm fully on board with formalising the CRS' investigatory powers, if they feel they are unable to investigate or talk to suspects at present, and would even support temporary provisions re; suspension of privileges... but at the end of the day due process exists for a reason. If you can't prove to the satisfaction of the Court that someone has done something illegal, and they're not engaged in the kind of "OOC" behaviour that warrants an instant ban (ie; porn spam, abuse, harassment, etc).... what grounds exactly is there for a ban?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-12-2017, 01:15 PM

(03-12-2017, 12:59 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Why exactly do we need a system that doesn't involve due process or the courts? This seems to be a case of "They haven't broken any of our laws/we don't have sufficient proof under our laws" - if there isn't sufficient basis to ban someone via the legal process, why exactly would we want to produce a new process to get around it?

I'm fully on board with formalising the CRS' investigatory powers, if they feel they are unable to investigate or talk to suspects at present, and would even support temporary provisions re; suspension of privileges... but at the end of the day due process exists for a reason. If you can't prove to the satisfaction of the Court that someone has done something illegal, and they're not engaged in the kind of "OOC" behaviour that warrants an instant ban (ie; porn spam, abuse, harassment, etc).... what grounds exactly is there for a ban?

The legal process is primarily designed to handle crimes -- i.e., actions that have already been taken that have done damage to TSP. This is a separate matter, which is the handling of security threats, those who have demonstrated they are likely to take such damaging actions. It's a question of how do we prevent crimes from occurring, instead of waiting for them to occur and then punishing them after the fact. The legal process is for those who have slipped past security measures and done damage to TSP, but it shouldn't be a substitute for security measures to prevent such damage from being done in the first place.

If we have to prove, according to the high threshold required in the legal process, that someone is absolutely going to do damage to TSP, we are never going to remove any security threats before they act to damage TSP. We are always going to be waiting until after they act. I will also note that when crimes have been committed in the past, TSP still has declined to take action even after the fact through the legal process, so that is another flaw. If security threats aren't being handled before they do damage, nor even after they do damage, those are serious problems that are leaving TSP vulnerable.

**Belschaft** · 03-12-2017, 01:19 PM

Isn't that an argument for changing the criminal code, rather than producing a new process that doesn't involve due process?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 03-12-2017, 01:56 PM

Well...this isn't a flaw in the criminal code as much as a proof that the regional culture prioritises a return to normalcy over the lawful prosecution of crimes committed. I'm not passing judgement on that, I'm merely saying that this is a real thing that happens. Unless the crime was so terrible that nearly everyone was effected (hence Coalition v. Milograd), people will usually ask for reconciliation.

@~~Cormac~~:
It admittedly needs tinkering and some changes, but I think there's some merit to the idea, at least the spirit behind it. It definitely is worth pursuing.

@sandaoguo:
I get what you mean, and I 100% agree that this is a problem. You know how much it bothers me to see people who should've been removed still around and on friendly terms with the region. At the same time though, I think there is a difference between one security threat and another: not all would deserve a forum ban, and I'm interested in working out a mechanism where forum bans won't be the first choice on the table, rather than the true last resort it should be.

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

~~Cormac~~ · 03-12-2017, 03:21 PM

How's this for a second draft?

Quote:
Security Powers Act
An Act to define security powers to address threats to the Coalition of the South Pacific

1. Security Measures

(1) When there is compelling information presented to the Council on Regional Security that an individual poses a risk to regional security, the Council may declare the individual a security risk.

(2) Upon declaring an individual a security risk, the Council on Regional Security may subject that individual to increased security precautions, including:
a. Suspension of voting in the Assembly, if the individual is already a legislator, and in elections;
b. Prohibition against admission to legislator status, if the individual is not already a legislator;
c. Prohibition against standing for election or being appointed to any office;
d. Suspension of the exercise of any office the individual already holds, and all accompanying powers and privileges;
e. Prohibition or suspension of participation in government ministries;
f. Prohibition or suspension of service as a game-side Regional Officer;
g. Suspension of specific game-side Regional Officer powers;
h. Prohibition against maintaining a World Assembly nation in the South Pacific;
i. Restrictions on the number of endorsements the individual's World Assembly nation in the South Pacific may maintain.

(3) The Council on Regional Security will conduct an investigation to determine whether an individual declared a security risk poses a long-term threat to regional security.

(4) If the Council on Regional Security determines that an individual declared a security risk does not pose a long-term threat to regional security, the Council will rescind its declaration that the individual is a security risk, and all precautions to which the individual had been subjected will be rescinded.

(5) If the Council on Regional Security determines that an individual declared a security risk poses a long-term threat to regional security, the Council will declare the individual a security threat.

(6) Upon being declared a security threat by the Council on Regional Security, an individual will be subjected to the following security precautions:
a. Removal from any office the individual already holds;
b. Prohibition against standing for election or being appointed to any office;
c. Removal of legislator status, if the individual is already a legislator;
d. Prohibition of legislator status;
e. Prohibition against participation in government ministries;
f. Prohibition against service as a game-side Regional Officer;
g. Prohibition against maintaining a World Assembly nation in the South Pacific.

(7) After being declared a security threat by the Council on Regional Security, should the individual persist in posing a threat to regional security through further threatening behavior, the Council on Regional Security may impose bans against the individual game-side, via the regional forum, and via any other off-site property maintained for official use by the Coalition of the South Pacific.

2. Oversight and Restrictions

(1) Should investigation of an individual declared a security risk exceed two weeks, the Assembly may, by a simple majority of those voting, rescind the security risk declaration, and all precautions to which the individual had been subjected will be rescinded.

(2) The Assembly may, by a three-fifths supermajority of those voting, rescind a security threat declaration, and all precautions to which the individual had been subjected, including bans for further threatening behavior, will be rescinded.

(3) An individual declared a security risk or a security threat may appeal such a declaration to the High Court, which will determine whether reasonable cause existed for the declaration. Should the High Court determine that reasonable cause did not exist, the declaration will be rescinded.

3. Constitutional Law

(1) The Security Powers Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

(This post was last modified: 03-12-2017, 03:47 PM by Cormac.)

***sandaoguo*** · 03-12-2017, 03:24 PM

Yes, of course not *all* threats rise to level of a forum ban. My disagreement is with the notion that we need to conduct a trial before a forum ban is given. And the reason for that is basically what Cormac has said: trials take place once the damage is done.

There can be granularity and gradations in security responses. I just think all options should be available.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 03-12-2017, 03:31 PM

I'm not sure how well Article 1 of this complies with Article 3 of the Charter, in regards to the permanent suspension of certain rights. I think the first clauses are fine, as they relate to temporary removal of rights subject to an investigation. Permanent suspension of any right absent "a fair trial", however, is almost certainly in violation of the Charter.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-12-2017, 03:41 PM

(03-12-2017, 03:31 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I'm not sure how well Article 1 of this complies with Article 3 of the Charter, in regards to the permanent suspension of certain rights. I think the first clauses are fine, as they relate to temporary removal of rights subject to an investigation. Permanent suspension of any right absent "a fair trial", however, is almost certainly in violation of the Charter.

This is designated a constitutional law. I'm not sure it's possible for a constitutional law to violate another constitutional law, is it? It seems to me that constitutional rights may instead be limited by the other provisions of constitutional law, which would include this law.

Were this not designated a constitutional law, I would agree. That's why I included the constitutional law designation, even though Tsu's draft didn't.

(This post was last modified: 03-12-2017, 03:42 PM by Cormac.)

**Belschaft** · 03-12-2017, 03:53 PM

The Charter takes precedence over any other Constitutional Law, and even if it didn't I'd have serious questions about the constitutionality of any law that purported to nullify bill of rights protections.

I think a distinction can and has to be made between temporary restrictions as part of a security investigation, and permanent restrictions at the conclusion of said investigation. If such an investigation concludes and doesn't find any evidence sufficient for a criminal case, I am unclear as to the legal basis for continuing to impose restrictions. Essentially, I don't think that security legislation can be used to remove an individuals legal rights.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES