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.

It seems there is disagreement in that regard, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Tsu's original draft also imposed precautions like these against security threats, but was not designated as a constitutional law.

If we can't impose precautions against security threats before they carry out damaging crimes, we will never prevent such crimes from occurring, rendering any security legislation completely pointless. What is the point in knowing someone is a threat but being unable to address the threat they pose?

(This post was last modified: 03-12-2017, 04:02 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

I'm not entirely sure I'd support giving the Assembly the power to rescind security threat declarations. If an individual remains a threat, they shouldn't be let back in because of political or popularity considerations. If they are no longer threats, that determination should ideally be made by the CSS or the High Court.

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

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.

It seems there is disagreement in that regard, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Tsu's original draft also imposed precautions like these against security threats, but was not designated as a constitutional law.

If we can't impose precautions against security threats before they carry out damaging crimes, we will never prevent such crimes from occurring, rendering any security legislation completely pointless. What is the point in knowing someone is a threat but being unable to address the threat they pose?

I can understand that logic, but I'm not sure how well it complies with TSP's broader and historic commitments to liberalism and democracy. I'm not sure exactly how acknowledging that someone has broken no laws but then subjecting them to extra-judicial punishment is at all compatible with what TSP stands for, not do I understand how we are purporting to know that someone is going to carry out a damaging crime before they've done so.

The definition of "security threat" seems very vague and general, which is certainly problematic for me. I'd be much more comfortable with preserving due-process by simple expanding the criminal code, rather than trying to circumnavigate the judicial system.

_{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'm not entirely sure I'd support giving the Assembly the power to rescind security threat declarations. If an individual remains a threat, they shouldn't be let back in because of political or popularity considerations. If they are no longer threats, that determination should ideally be made by the CSS or the High Court.

I don't think it's reasonable to give the power to determine whether someone remains a threat to the High Court, if we are not also asking the High Court to determine whether they were a threat in the first place. The High Court's only role, as currently drafted, is to determine, upon appeal, whether there existed reasonable cause for the CRS to determine someone is a security risk or threat.

The issue with letting the CRS be the only institution that can determine whether an individual remains a security threat, and thus the only institution that can rescind security threat declarations, is that it places all power in the hands of the CRS with no checks and balances. It is unwise to leave so much power exclusively in the hands of the CRS, as that invites unchecked abuse of power.

I can understand that logic, but I'm not sure how well it complies with TSP's broader and historic commitments to liberalism and democracy. I'm not sure exactly how acknowledging that someone has broken no laws but then subjecting them to extra-judicial punishment is at all compatible with what TSP stands for, not do I understand how we are purporting to know that someone is going to carry out a damaging crime before they've done so.

The definition of "security threat" seems very vague and general, which is certainly problematic for me. I'd be much more comfortable with preserving due-process by simple expanding the criminal code, rather than trying to circumnavigate the judicial system.

I suggest you spearhead such legislation, in that case, as I don't believe it would be sufficient. If we require the high threshold of evidence needed for criminal proceedings to address a security threat, we will never address a security threat until after they have committed damaging crimes.

(This post was last modified: 03-12-2017, 04:16 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

I'm not entirely sure I'd support giving the Assembly the power to rescind security threat declarations. If an individual remains a threat, they shouldn't be let back in because of political or popularity considerations. If they are no longer threats, that determination should ideally be made by the CSS or the High Court.

I don't think it's reasonable to give the power to determine whether someone remains a threat to the High Court, if we are not also asking the High Court to determine whether they were a threat in the first place. The High Court's only role, as currently drafted, is to determine, upon appeal, whether there existed reasonable cause for the CRS to determine someone is a security risk or threat.

The issue with letting the CRS be the only institution that can determine whether an individual remains a security threat, and thus the only institution that can rescind security threat declarations, is that it places all power in the hands of the CRS with no checks and balances. It is unwise to leave so much power exclusively in the hands of the CRS, as that invites unchecked abuse of power.

I can understand that logic, but I'm not sure how well it complies with TSP's broader and historic commitments to liberalism and democracy. I'm not sure exactly how acknowledging that someone has broken no laws but then subjecting them to extra-judicial punishment is at all compatible with what TSP stands for, not do I understand how we are purporting to know that someone is going to carry out a damaging crime before they've done so.

The definition of "security threat" seems very vague and general, which is certainly problematic for me. I'd be much more comfortable with preserving due-process by simple expanding the criminal code, rather than trying to circumnavigate the judicial system.

I suggest you spearhead such legislation, in that case, as I don't believe it would be sufficient. If we require the high threshold of evidence needed for criminal proceedings to address a security threat, we will never address a security threat until after they have committed damaging crimes.

If there is sufficient evidence for the CRS to declare someone a security threat, why would there not be sufficient evidence for the CRS to bring criminal charges? All I'm seeing here is the idea that the CRS might have lower burdens and lesser protections, thus curtailing due process.

It should not be a complicated idea that if people are to be subject to permanent restrictions on their rights they need to have done something against the law.

_{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

If there is sufficient evidence for the CRS to declare someone a security threat, why would there not be sufficient evidence for the CRS to bring criminal charges? All I'm seeing here is the idea that the CRS might have lower burdens and lesser protections, thus curtailing due process.

It should not be a complicated idea that if people are to be subject to permanent restrictions on their rights they need to have done something against the law.

The goal is to prevent security threats from getting to the point of committing damaging crimes, not to wait until they have already committed them and the damage has been done. This is not a difficult concept.

Were you not the person who drafted the previous security threat law?

Reply

I don't think it's reasonable to give the power to determine whether someone remains a threat to the High Court, if we are not also asking the High Court to determine whether they were a threat in the first place. The High Court's only role, as currently drafted, is to determine, upon appeal, whether there existed reasonable cause for the CRS to determine someone is a security risk or threat.

The issue with letting the CRS be the only institution that can determine whether an individual remains a security threat, and thus the only institution that can rescind security threat declarations, is that it places all power in the hands of the CRS with no checks and balances. It is unwise to leave so much power exclusively in the hands of the CRS, as that invites unchecked abuse of power.

That's a fair assessment. My only concern is with letting the Assembly have a role in lifting threat declarations, since we could risk letting a threat back in, only because they might be popular or well-liked at the time. I'd be on board if we could find a reasonable solution to that issue.

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

That's a fair assessment. My only concern is with letting the Assembly have a role in lifting threat declarations, since we could risk letting a threat back in, only because they might be popular or well-liked at the time. I'd be on board if we could find a reasonable solution to that issue.

I'll think on it, or if anyone else has any ideas that would be great as well.

I do share your popularity concern, which is why I required the three-fifths supermajority for rescinding a security threat declaration. The threshold for rescinding a security risk declaration if the CRS investigation drags on for too long is lower, requiring only a simple majority.

Reply

Cormac — can we just make it conditional? So, some of the pieces may be enacted against a security threat, not necessarily all of them?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Cormac — can we just make it conditional? So, some of the pieces may be enacted against a security threat, not necessarily all of them?

We could, if people think that's best. I would like to hear a little more input on that. I just wasn't sure when we would ever realistically not impose all those precautions against a security threat. Can you provide an example of one of the precautions you think may be appropriate in some cases, but not others?

I should note, to avoid any confusion, that the precautions against a security risk under investigation are already optional, while the precautions against security threats who have already been investigated aren't optional in the current draft. Do others also think they should be optional?

Reply