| Local Council Elections |
(11-25-2018, 08:03 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: If an action is, as you say, not codified as a crime, what justification is there for any punishment? In this case there is a history of the offense being codified as a crime in the relevant jurisdiction. I would also point that it is likely that this will again become codified in response to this event. Furthermore, I believe that the action I have requested the court take is less of a punishment and more of an action of equity that allows for the wrong actions to be corrected. To awnser your question directly I would believe that there is justification because it is a violation of ethics, and a violation of the unspoken contract of participation in the RMB. It is also a violation of past and future codified laws.
In other words, there is no law that currently supports the kind of action that you advocate?
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
(11-25-2018, 08:15 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: In other words, there is no law that currently supports the kind of action that you advocate? There is no specific law currently. The violation of Auphelia's right of free speech and expression by Techolandia's actions might be reason enough for the action I advocate. Clarifying question: If there was to be a law against these actions passed before the closing of the case would that be enough to overturn the rounds of voting affected by techolandia's actions?
Your Honor,
I would like to point out that the root of the issue lies in the perception that Techolandia violated the law through his unethical actions. Section 8 of the Criminal Code states that, “Electoral Fraud shall be defined as a manipulation of the democratic process in The South Pacific, wherein an organised body of abettors conspire to obtain legislator status with the intent to vote for private or personal advantage.” Techolandia’s unethical actions at worst constitutes an attempt to manipulate the democratic process in The South Pacific. This is because of his attempt to undermine another candidate through the dissemination of false and misleading information of a political opponent. However, because the clause also specified a form of electoral fraud that did not include the dissemination of false and misleading campaign ads/telegrams, the Election Commissioner had little choice but to determine that Techolandia did not violate our laws when he engaged in an undefined form of electoral fraud.
Your Honor,
I would like to begin by expressing my apologies for a lack of commentary on this subject in these last few days. Due to work constraints, I have not had the time to respond to this inquiry as it was requested of me by the court. I am now able to do so, so, without any further ado, I will begin to do so. Regarding the remarks made by Islands of Unity, I feel the need to inform the court that we did discuss the fact that there are very few concrete, and explicit legal arguments regarding my initial request for actions to be taken about this situation. The fact of the matter is, though, that, in spite of there not being a specific crime being committed, nor a violation of any specific rule, law, or regional dictum; I would like to argue that the whole purpose of a justice system is to establish rules based on the morality of the possible behaviors that can be conducted by the different actors under that justice system. Most laws, or otherwise legally binding dicta, stem from the innate human perception of what can be considered right, or wrong, and a wish, and need, for the entire society as a whole to abide by the same set of norms, as a part of the concept of equality. It is under this very basic concept, then, that I believe that the existence, or lack thereof, of a crime that can encompass the actions carried out by Technolandia do not necessarily imply that there is no wrongdoing. The wrong done by Technolandia can be easily identified by our natural sense of morality: this simply feels wrong. Having said that, I do believe there has been a mistake in regards to the purpose of my initial request. My request is not so much for a punishment towards Technolandia for their actions, but rather for actions to be taken in order to resolve the, in my, and other fellow citizens's view, lack of a valid Local Council election result. I do not expect this court to come up with any sort of punishment for Technolandia, since the initial announcement that triggered all of this already stated that there was no written law being broken. In other words, and as Islands of Unity stated before me, the actions being requested do not focus so much on the punishment for the wrongdoing, but rather on how to fix the damage caused by it. The only true way of fixing this would be to overturn the results of the 2nd and 3rd round of the recent Local Council elections, and have the Election Commissioner run them again, with previous notice to the population of the region about this, so that they are fully aware of the circumstances, and the effects caused by the interference from Technolandia can be reverted. It is my belief that the foundations for these actions to be requested of the Commissioner by this court can be found in the clear evidence of wrongdoing being presented by the Commissioner themselves, and the conviction that the principles that birthed the rule of law should be more than enough to justify actions be taken. Continuing to develop a previously stated idea that the very thread of our democracy was attacked, I'd like to reference the following extract from section II of The Charter of The Coalition of the South Pacific: "The integrity of the Coalition, in its forums and the region, shall not be challenged or violated by any government official, internal dissidents, or other regions." Undue interference in the elections process for one of the bodies that compose our government, as defined by this very same Charter in section V, which establishes the Local Council, can, and definitely should, be qualified as challenging the integrity of the Coalition. In addition, it is also worth noting that, as Islands of Unity mentioned, due to the dimensions that this issue is currently taking, it is very likely that the corresponding legal norms will be created, modified, or expanded, to include these actions as, not only common sense, but also legal wrongdoing, and setting a precedent in this matter would go a long way in establishing a context for this to be carried out. Without nothing else to state at this time, I make myself available to this court for any inquiries about these remarks, or any other issue Your Honor might find pertinent to this matter. ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
The following 5 users Like nahuelm's post:• Imperial Frost Federation, Nakari, Rebeltopia, Seraph, Volaworand
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
- HCRR1804 - REVIEW OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE NOVEMBER 2018 LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTION Do the actions of Technolandia cast doubt on the validity of the election, and what remedy is available if so? 26 DECEMBER 2018 Justice SANDAOGUO delivered the Opinion, signed also by Chief Justice Kringalia. Summary of the Opinion
The Court finds that the certification of the November 2018 Local Council election is valid and thus request for remedy is denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered that the Local Council Elections Law does not prohibit the use of seemingly underhanded political behavior, and that no other criminal or civil laws applicable to the Local Council have been violated. Additionally, the Court finds that the Election Commission does not have jurisdiction to settle election-related disputes under the Local Council Elections Law, and absent such an authorization, requests for remedy in relation to Local Council elections must be made to the High Court or settled by the Local Council itself. Furthermore, the Court finds that even if defamation was a crime at the time, Technolandia's claims are not defamatory. As such, further consideration on the necessity of a new election is moot. I. Jurisdictional Concerns The first task of this Court, in any case before it, is to consider questions of jurisdiction. Who has the authority to remedy a wrong? Before the merits of a case can be heard by the Court, we issue a declaration of justiciability, part of which is finding that the Court has jurisdiction over the case or controversy in question. We did so here, and now a more thorough explanation of our decision is warranted. This is the first case challenging the electoral process of the Local Council. The relationship between the forum-based and game-based communities of the Coalition can be complicated, but generally the Charter in Article V.2 lays out that the Local Council “is entitled to self-administration within its jurisdiction on local issues.” This is not without limitations. No law or regulation passed by the Local Council may contradict the Charter or a constitutional law passed by the Assembly. The election of Local Councillors decidedly is a local issue. Prior to the passage of the Self-Administration Clause, Local Council elections were regulated by the Elections Act, a constitutional law duly passed by the Assembly. However, on June 12, 2017, the Assembly repealed these regulations, leaving the determination of time, manner, and term lengths to the Local Council itself. Subsequently, the Local Council passed its own Elections Law. While there are many differences between the Assembly’s Elections Act and the Local Council’s Elections Law, there is a critical difference in the powers assigned to the Election Commission. In Cabinet, Assembly, and Delegate elections, regulated under the Elections Act, the Election Commission is empowered with original jurisdiction over election-related disputes (Article 1.5). This provision does not exist within the Local Council’s Elections Law, which only tasks the Election Commission with organizing the technical aspects of elections. While the Local Council seems to have chosen to piggy-back off the pre-existing Election Commission infrastructure, we cannot say that the Local Council intended the Election Commission to have all the same power and authority it has under the Elections Act. When the Local Council was given the right to self-administration, it was given the right to make those decisions explicitly for itself. In this case, it has not chosen explicitly to give the Election Commission original jurisdiction over Local Council election-related disputes. Indeed, while the Election Commission did not err in certifying the results of the November 2018 election, they are not empowered with any legal authority to do anything other than count the ballots and declare who won according to the rules set forth within the Local Council Elections Law. To the extent that the Election Commission published notice that Technolandia did not break any NationStates rules, there is no legal force behind it beyond the Election Commission stating its opinion. In other words, had the Election Commission determined that Technolandia violated laws that cast into doubt the results of the election, they would have had no legal authority to issue a remedy, be that disqualifying Technolandia or restarting the elections altogether. Absent the Local Council explicitly providing the Election Commission with jurisdiction to settle election-related disputes, we find that there are only two venues to settle such disputes under current law. The first is the Local Council itself passing a law or regulation settling the dispute. The second is a Legal Question submitted with the High Court, which has final jurisdiction for the entire Coalition over any legal dispute covered under Article VIII.4 and Article VIII.5 of the Charter. II. Claims of Malfeasance The central claim against Technolandia is that they libelously misrepresented comments posted by Auphelia. Libel, or defamation more broadly, is the pillar upon which the argument of election illegitimacy rests, and so we must consider two things: 1. Is the telegram sent by Technolandia libelous? In other words, are the claims within the telegram deceitful, false, and made with actual malice, and did Auphelia suffer demonstrable harm? 2. Is defamation prima facie grounds for the nullification of an election? Technolandia sent out a telegram to Auphelia voters making the claim that Auphelia has a posting history “which includes numerous references to the Holocaust, specifically death camps and gas chambers, that many nations find disturbing.” A selection of these posts is included in the evidence submitted by Election Commissioner Pencil Sharpener’s 2. An overview of these posts does show that Auphelia did use references to gas chambers, death camps, labor camps, re-education camps, and concentration camps. Given that, it is difficult to argue that Technolandia has made facially false claims about Auphelia’s posting content. The only defense given, by concerned party Belschaft, is that the comments were selectively edited and taken out of context. After a review of the posts in question, the Court must disagree. While certain posts were not quoted in full, we do not conclude that the abbreviated quotations change the context or in any way alter the meaning of the original posts. For example, Auphelia made the following post on 3/18/2017: “Erm . . . I hate to break it to you but Africa is a continent. And if you are going to keep doing this, Knowhere is a great place . . . . pristine white beaches . . . . full spa facilities . . . *whispers under breath* . . .. gas chambers . . . .” The quote of this post was certainly shortened, but not in a way that changed its meaning: “Knowhere is a great place . . . . pristine white beaches . . . . full spa facilities . . . *whispers under breath* . . .. gas chambers . . . .” Are these posts taken out of context? There appears to have been a roleplaying plot line in Knowhere that included gas chambers, and that context is not available from Technolandia’s claims. That much is true. However, this is not context that fundamentally changes how reasonable people may perceive the posts. Indeed, the use of Holocaust references in jokes, which is what the posts most closely resemble, is often considered offensive no matter the context in which they are made. Reasonable people can disagree on how offensive Auphelia’s posts are, the Court is not passing judgement one way or the other. But the fact that there can be disagreement here means that Technolandia’s opinion that the posts are offensive, and thus Auphelia not a suitable candidate for Local Council, is a legitimate point of view. Defamation does not mean simply that someone says something that harms another’s reputation. To be defamation, the defamatory comment must be actually false, said with actual knowledge that it is false, and actually harm the reputation of the other people in measurable ways. While the loss of an election may be measurable, the primary requirement of defamation is not met here. Furthermore, defamation was not itself a crime in any part of The South Pacific when the claims were made. In fact, while the Court has considered its own definition of defamation, for the purposes of this case, this should not be considered to be the authoritative definition of the concept, nor should it be considered a ruling on the likelihood that defamation may have taken place under the definition of the recently codified crime of defamation. If defamation was a crime, and if defamation did indeed occur, the Court might consider hearing arguments on a request to nullify an election based upon the commission of a serious crime. However, that bar is still a high one to meet. While we have no need to delve into the merits in this case, given that we have ruled out defamation, there are many questions that make this Legal Question possibly impossible to answer. How can the Court determine if an electoral outcome was determined by defamatory comments? How can the Court nullify certain votes, but not others? When does a defamation case become important enough to nullify an election? Do we nullify every election in which a defamatory claim is made, regardless of the severity of the claim? Perhaps some questions have no legally certain answer. Alas, this case is rather simple: Technolandia’s comments do not qualify as defamation, and thus there is nothing else to consider.
Your Honor,
First of all, I thank the Court for evaluating and ruling on the case. Despite I have publicly denounced the lengthy wait, I do appreciate the depth of the analysis that was done in order to assess this situation in the most comprehensive manner. However, I don't see any mention regarding a part of my testimony where the point was made that, since the Local Council is one of the bodies that compone the government of our region, challenging or violating its integrity is defined as wrongdoing on the following Charter language: "The integrity of the Coalition, in its forums and the region, shall not be challenged or violated by any government official, internal dissidents, or other regions." Even more so, the following paragraph in my testimony requests of the court to specifically rule on whether this act can be considered "challenging the integrity of the coalition" and, after carefully examining the ruling, there doesn't appear to be any mention of this angle, as presented by me. The question of defamation was ruled on instead, which wasn't particularly brought up by me at any point during my testimony on this case, nor on my initial "request for actions to be taken", as I put it at the time. Furthermore, the Court is empowered by the Charter in section VIII, item 6, to "clarify and interpret provisions of law when presented with a Legal Question about them", which is the category in which the aforementioned request falls into. I would like to be informed if I need to formally appeal to this decision for this information to be taken into account, or if the Court has any argument that can be presented to immediately rule out these points as a valid objection to the current ruling. Without else to add, I make myself available for any questions.
While the Court accepts amicus briefs, and those briefs may sometimes go on tangents, we exercise discretion over which briefs or portions of briefs we find relevant to the outcome of the case. In this instance, musings on what "the integrity of the Coalition" means was not pertinent to the question the Court agreed to hear: whether or not defamation occurred, what that would mean for the integrity of the election results, and what the proper remedy would be if the integrity of the results was on question.
Those are dependent questions, in order. As the Court found that defamation (a) was not a crime at the time and (b) did not occur under common law notions of what defamation means, the subsequent questions were rendered moot. The Court avoids maximalist legal rulings when possible. So while we may be empowered to opine on what "the integrity of the Coalition" means, broadly or in context, it does not mean that we will take any opportunity to do so, regardless of its relevance to the case at hand. The Court obviously invites anybody to submit a Legal Question on any portion of the Charter. It's simply in this instance, we did not need to broach the question to reach our outcome.
It is also worth pointing out that the Court rules only on the question or charge as originally submitted. It would be irregular and impractical to rule on every question posed through subsequent amicus briefs, which are, by their very nature, analyses meant to help the Court understand a particular argument, rather than corollaries to the actual question.
Your argument on the integrity of the Coalition, while interesting in itself, was not the original question (which was an appeal of the decision to certify the Local Council election), and therefore, while the Court did consider it, it did not have an obligation to address it. 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
Your Honourable Justices,
May I ask a question or two? They are not questions of the courts decision rather of how the court found the process of decision making in this case. if it be improper, I apologise. The questions being. Did your honourable justices find the absence of any specific jurisdictional laws in relation to the electoral commissioner hindered, benefited or was worrisome in your consideration of this case? Did your honourable justices discover any areas of concern in considering the existing LC laws, which could/should be raised to the LC. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |