1. Definitions

(1) “Persona non grata” is the status of being prohibited from having a nation in The South Pacific or an account on the official forums of The South Pacific.

2. Grant of Authority over Non-Legislators

(1) The Cabinet, by majority vote, may declare a foreign person “persona non grata” to deter or respond to acts of foreign aggression, provided that the person does not hold qualified Legislator status in the Assembly.

(2) The declaration must be accompanied by an explanation viewable by the general public.

3. Grant of Authority over Legislators

(1) Should a majority of the Cabinet seek to declare a qualified Legislator “persona non grata,” it must first establish with reasonable grounds that the person:
(a) is an agent acting on behalf of a foreign region or organization;
(b) was or is actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners;
(c ) has coordinated to exploit, manipulate, or unduly influence elections in The South Pacific or its allies and partners, on behalf of a foreign region or organization;
(d) has engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners; or,
(e) has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.

(2) The Assembly must debate the Cabinet’s report, and either reject the request for a “persona non grata” declaration, or approve of it by majority vote.

3. Judicial Review

(1) Legislators subject to a “persona non grata” declaration may challenge the veracity of the claims made by the Cabinet and the Assembly, in the High Court.

(2) The “persona non grata” status will remain throughout the judicial process, but the individual must be given adequate permissions to view and respond to the relevant threads in the High Court forum.

(3) The “persona non grata” status will be lifted if the High Court finds that it is substantially more likely than not that the claims presented by the Cabinet are false.

I'm not sure about having this apply to TSPers - it stinks of extra-judicialism, as every qualifying act is a crime.

Edit: I've actually come on to my computer to comment on this in more detail, as it's actually massively more awful than I initially thought.
 

(03-26-2018, 05:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: 3. Judicial Review

(1) Legislators subject to a “persona non grata” declaration may challenge the veracity of the claims made by the Cabinet and the Assembly, in the High Court.

(2) The “persona non grata” status will remain throughout the judicial process, but the individual must be given adequate permissions to view and respond to the relevant threads in the High Court forum.

(3) The “persona non grata” status will be lifted if the High Court finds that it is substantially more likely than not that the claims presented by the Cabinet are false.

The section I have highlighted is a complete reverse of the established judicial standard for "burdens of proof" - the High Court is required to uphold a PNG status even if they don't think the Cabinet's claim are true. I'm choosing to "believe" that Glen and everyone liking the OP have simply failed to realise this, and are not intentionally requiring the accussed to prove their innocence rather than the cabinet prove their guilt.

Because that's what this requires.

The only reason I'm not saying this proposal stinks is because it's an insult to skunks.

I'll simply point to the Prohibited Groups & Organizations law that you wrote, that uses the same set up.

Honestly, I think the first part is better than the Prohibited Groups/Organizations legislative, since it's far more finite and specific.

That said, I think we should focus this on non-legislators rather than trying to pull legislators into this as well.

The goal here is basically to take the PGO law and individualize it. That’s what’s been called for on Discord for a while now.

I *personally* think having a process for legislators is important, because we’ve dealt with problematic individuals working on behalf of other regions before, but haven’t had a way to root them out. This *can* be done via security law, unilaterally by the CRS, but I have pretty much zero faith in that being effective. The moment we try to say someone is a threat to our security, they become a lamb to slaughter who must be protected at all costs, no matter what evidence there is against them.

That’s not to say I have faith that this would work leagues better particularly. But if I’m going for just taking the PGO process and applying it to individuals... well, the PGO covers legislators, too. I figure, if it works for groups, it should work for individuals, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A PNG for non TSPers is fine and something I support; one covering current TSPers is legally and ethically questionable. Your suggestion that this is the "same" as the PGO legislation remains substantially untrue, as your draft inverts burdens of proof - something that PGO does not.

The sections covering TSP legislators are 100% illegal, as they breach Article III. Clause 2. of the Charter aka. the Bill of Rights.

Just to nip this in the bud, so it doesn't devolve into an ever-repeating debate, here's a takedown of Belschaft's argument.

First, let's compare this draft with the Prohibited Groups & Organizations law that Belschaft primarily wrote:

	PGO	PNG
Who makes the initial request?	The Cabinet or the CRS	The Cabinet
Who approves of the request?	The Assembly	The Assembly
What are the qualifications?	a. Were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific; b. Have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; c. Groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; d. Groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations.	(a) is an agent acting on behalf of a foreign region or organization; (b) was or is actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners; (c ) has coordinated to exploit, manipulate, or unduly influence elections in The South Pacific or its allies and partners, on behalf of a foreign region or organization; (d) has engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners; or, (e) has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.
What's the impact?	Revocation of legislator status	Prohibition of residency/forum usage
When does it go into effect?	Seven-day grace period	Immediately after Assembly approval
What is the due process method?	If your legislator status has been revoked, you can go to the High Court to prove you aren't a member of the prohibited group	If you've been targeted, you can go to the High Court to prove that the Cabinet's claims are false
What's the time limit on going to the court?	Seven days	No time limit

As you can see, these are near-identical processes. Both of these laws would impact the legal rights of a legislator targeted by the Assembly's decision. Both have identical means of contesting the action: going to the High Court and proving the claims against them wrong. Additionally, there's the initial due process protection of the targets of these laws being able to argue against them during Assembly debate. No affected legislator would be silenced or blocked from contesting the accusations made against them.

Is this shared process violating due process rights in the Bill of Rights of the Charter?

Simply put, no. More specifically, the High Court defines due process in the Charter as follows:

(03-05-2018, 01:00 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: While the Charter does not offer a conclusive definition of "due process", the Court understands it within the context of a series of procedures and guarantees that ensure expulsions are not arbitrary, can be reasonable contested and are consistent with the general values espoused by the Charter.

This is a three-prong test this bill meets, as does the PGO law already in existence.
 
This bill requires the Cabinet to reach a majority decision, the Assembly to debate the Cabinet's claims, and a final vote to approve them or deny the request for PNG status. Additionally, legislators can only be targeted for PNG status for a specific list of aggressive behaviors. There is procedure here-- the Cabinet's requirement to make a claim with reasonable grounds to it; the Assembly's debate and vote. There are safeguards against arbitrariness-- the specific list of applicable behaviors.
 
This bill allows contesting the claims in two ways. First, before the Assembly votes on the final approval/denial, the affected person(s) can directly and vigorously defend themselves. Second, if the Assembly does approve the PNG declaration, the affected person(s) can go to the High Court and prove the claims are wrong.
 
The PGO law has existed in our legal canon for about 5 years now. It was kept in our Criminal Code at the last Great Council. It conforms to the Charter's due process protections, and requires the Assembly to make the final decision. Our region has always believed that there are certain expectations of participation in good faith, protection of TSP's sovereignty, and an agreement that TSPers who are in other regions don't act as an agent for their other regions in TSP's government. The purpose of the PGO law -- and this PNG law based upon it -- is to uphold those values by rooting out those who violate them. If the PGO law is consistent with our values, then so too must this law be. They are functionally identical.

In fact, I would go so far to say that an individualized PNG law is more consistent with our values. By addressing behavior on an individual level, innocent people aren't swept up in a group prohibition, forced to denounce their friends because some higher-ups in their organization did bad things. It doesn't introduce guilt by association, because it's targeted towards the single individuals who are problems. That's far more consistent with our democratic values than the PGO law is today.

Glen has now moved on from wilfully ignoring that the PGO doesn't reverse the standard of burdens to now pretending that it does, switching from misrepresentation to deceit. Congratulations Glen, you're lying to the Assembly. Again.
 

PGO Wrote:(5) Any individual whose legislator status has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited Group to the High Court within 7 days of their legislator status being revoked.
a. The High Court shall uphold the revocation of legislator status if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of revocation.
b. The High Court shall reinstate legislator status if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of revocation.

vs.
 

PNG Wrote:3. Judicial Review

(1) Legislators subject to a “persona non grata” declaration may challenge the veracity of the claims made by the Cabinet and the Assembly, in the High Court.

(2) The “persona non grata” status will remain throughout the judicial process, but the individual must be given adequate permissions to view and respond to the relevant threads in the High Court forum.

(3) The “persona non grata” status will be lifted if the High Court finds that it is substantially more likely than not that the claims presented by the Cabinet are false.

vs.
 

Judicial Act Wrote:Article 5: Criminal Cases

(1) As part of a case, the justice may indict an individual if there is probable cause that this individual has committed a criminal act. If the criminal act is not substantially related to the case, the assigned justice is encouraged to start a separate case for the indictment.

(2) Upon indictment, the individual will be contacted through at least one reasonable means and given at least one week to defend themselves before an opinion may be delivered.

(3) The assigned justice will deliver with the opinion a verdict for each indictment contained within the case. The verdict shall be guilty if and only if the accused admitted guilt or the justice has determined it to be substantially more likely than not that the criminal act occurred.

People can see for themselves that you have reversed the judicial standard. People can see for themselves that the PGO does not reverse the judicial standard.

You are lying. Blatantly and unapologetically. Stop it.

If you want to reverse the burden to "guilty till proven innocent" then just admit it openly, I'd have more respect for you.

~~~

Further, every single action contained under Article 3. Clause 1. is equivalent to at least one offence in the criminal code;

---

 
(a) is an agent acting on behalf of a foreign region or organization;

(1) Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity against which a state of war exists.
 
(3) Espionage shall be defined as an act of or attempt to obtain information that is confidential or not made publicly available for use by oneself or an entity one represents. Distribution of private information that originates on the South Pacific Forum, excluding private messages, without the express written permission of the relevant officials or institutions shall be considered Espionage.
 
(6) Organised crime shall be defined as involvement in a group or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in The South Pacific.

(b) was or is actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners;

(1) Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity against which a state of war exists.

(c ) has coordinated to exploit, manipulate, or unduly influence elections in The South Pacific or its allies and partners, on behalf of a foreign region or organization;

(1) Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity against which a state of war exists.
 
(6) Organised crime shall be defined as involvement in a group or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in The South Pacific.
 
(8) 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.

(d) has engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners; or,

(3) Espionage shall be defined as an act of or attempt to obtain information that is confidential or not made publicly available for use by oneself or an entity one represents. Distribution of private information that originates on the South Pacific Forum, excluding private messages, without the express written permission of the relevant officials or institutions shall be considered Espionage.
 
(6) Organised crime shall be defined as involvement in a group or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in The South Pacific.

(e) has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics.

(1) Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity against which a state of war exists.
 
(6) Organised crime shall be defined as involvement in a group or association with the intent of committing an unlawful act in The South Pacific.

---

Thus these can and must be considered criminal accusations.

By producing criteria that are ipso facto criminal accusations, this draft falls afoul of the Clause 2. of Article III. of the Charter, the Bill of Rights;
 

Quote:2. The right to a fair trial and defense against criminal accusations will not be abridged. No member may be subject to any bill of attainder, be tried for the same crime more than once, or be tried ex post facto.

Creating a parallel, extra-judicial process with lower burdens of proof for guilt is a textbook example of abridging the right to a fair trial and defence against criminal accusations. By reversing the burden of proof it further breaches the Bill of Rights, by denying the accused "defence" - in that it requires them to prove their innocence, rather than the accuser prove their guilt.

Finally, by having the Assembly vote on whether or not to ban someone from TSP - which is what your draft does - you have produced a bill of attainder, something else forbidden.

This draft is in breach of the Charter. Period.

TLDR: Glen has written a law that would require us to repeal an entire clause of the Bill of Rights.

Can we not make this a usual knock-down-drag-out fight between the two of you?

Instead of individualizing the PGO completely, can't we include a clause saying that if someone applied to be a legislator with ill intent it can be removed? That way, the base of legislator won't be subjected to this, but anyone coming here with that purpose can be kicked?

As for members who are here, if we keep the PGO that's a way to deal with that or finally we can still file criminal charges.

But tradition!