Users browsing this thread:

**USoVietnam** · 01-07-2019, 08:33 AM

The initial proscription could have added the line "The relevant logs will be released once the intel gatherers are safe" and saved us tons of efforts related to PR. Haters will continue to hate but neutral parties wouldn't have a reason to doubt.

Chief Supervising Armchair

***Roavin*** · 01-07-2019, 08:39 AM

(01-07-2019, 08:33 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: The initial proscription could have added the line "The relevant logs will be released once the intel gatherers are safe" and saved us tons of efforts related to PR. Haters will continue to hate but neutral parties wouldn't have a reason to doubt.

I'm not so sure about that. TSP could cure world hunger and GP would slam us for putting "Actions Against Hunger" out of business. Tounge

**Belschaft** · 01-07-2019, 08:39 AM

I think this disclosure combined with Glen’s proposed ammendments to the Proscriptions Act - Article One in particular - demonstrate exactly why the Court ruled as it did.

I trust this will be the end of the malfeasance accusations against Kris and myself.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Techganet · 01-07-2019, 08:47 AM

I'd just like to say that intelligence has done really great work.
But I guess you could say that this is just part of your job.....

(This post was last modified: 01-07-2019, 08:48 AM by Techganet.)

***sandaoguo*** · 01-07-2019, 09:26 AM

(01-07-2019, 08:39 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I think this disclosure combined with Glen’s proposed ammendments to the Proscriptions Act - Article One in particular - demonstrate exactly why the Court ruled as it did.

I trust this will be the end of the malfeasance accusations against Kris and myself.

While I appreciate you voting for my rewrite of the law, the whole point of the rewrite is to prevent another case where your own preferred policy opinions don’t dictate the legal outcome of the case. You still do not understand why that opinion, particularly how you said you reached it, is criticized. Which is why, at the end of the day, the law needs to be changed, because it was not being applied correctly. And the Court still has not clarified the meaning of its opinion in light of contradictory statements, despite numerous public requests. The new Proscription Act renders the opinion moot— it doesn’t, as this comment seems to imply, prove the Court right.

The Assembly should not forget the criticisms about that opinion. The Court seriously erred and has avoided accountability for it, choosing instead to attack the critics by saying we’ve leveled bad faith accusations of malfeasance.

(This post was last modified: 01-07-2019, 09:27 AM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 01-07-2019, 10:41 AM

(01-07-2019, 09:26 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(01-07-2019, 08:39 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I think this disclosure combined with Glen’s proposed ammendments to the Proscriptions Act - Article One in particular - demonstrate exactly why the Court ruled as it did.

I trust this will be the end of the malfeasance accusations against Kris and myself.

While I appreciate you voting for my rewrite of the law, the whole point of the rewrite is to prevent another case where your own preferred policy opinions don’t dictate the legal outcome of the case. You still do not understand why that opinion, particularly how you said you reached it, is criticized. Which is why, at the end of the day, the law needs to be changed, because it was not being applied correctly. And the Court still has not clarified the meaning of its opinion in light of contradictory statements, despite numerous public requests. The new Proscription Act renders the opinion moot— it doesn’t, as this comment seems to imply, prove the Court right.

The Assembly should not forget the criticisms about that opinion. The Court seriously erred and has avoided accountability for it, choosing instead to attack the critics by saying we’ve leveled bad faith accusations of malfeasance.

To the contrary, my impression is that with the exception of yourself there is a general understanding that the Court ruled in accordance with the law and in the only manner it could according to the law. No one else has indicated any real confusion with our ruling, and despite your loud protestations to the contrary by your actions it seems clear to me that you also understand the issues.

The new clauses two and three of Article One;

“(2) Conspiracy, defined as planning, strategizing, or otherwise showing an intent to commit an act of hostility shall itself be considered an act of hostility.”

(3) Complicity, defined as promoting, inducing, aiding or abetting an act of hostility, including a conspiracy to commit such an act, shall itself be considered an act of hostility.”

These clauses clearly and unambiguously expand the scope of hostility, which currently is limited to actions that have occured but now will included actions that have enemy contemplated or otherwise planned, as well as adding an expanded concepts of conspiracy and complicity, which were previously limited.

These amendments do not make sense in any context other than you understanding why the Court ruled in the manner that it did.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 01-07-2019, 10:44 AM by Belschaft.)