Oh, stop being a massive fucking hypocrite Unibot.

*coughs* TNI treaty vote *coughs*

*coughs* UDL vote stacking *coughs*

*coughs* UDL spying on GCR's *coughs*

You play as dirty a game as I do, the difference is I don't wear a mask of goodie-two-shoes kitten hugging.

(02-22-2015, 04:45 PM)Unibot Wrote: Thank you for clarifying your earlier remarks.

Nonetheless, I would disagree with that characterization - the decision was made by elected officials by a vote and upheld by the Assembly. The problem is not whether it is anti-democratic or not, but whether the system protects the individual and their rights against the tyranny of a majority - I think that that is obvious; any such cabinet decision is a solemn affair and not done lightly. Belschaft had to become an obvious, colossal security problem before The South Pacific would legitimately consider removing his citizenship.

He was attempting to blackmail officials and has a repeated history of misusing public office and rigging elections - with the exception of the latter (arguably) - none of these are a crime in The South Pacific, probably because Belschaft wrote most of our criminal code, such that it does more to protect him from "defamation" than it does the Coalition from corruption, blackmail, extortion and electioneering. So is Belschaft, a "criminal"? He's never been tried and I'm not sure how far a case would stand with him. Is he a security risk? Yes, incontrovertibly so.  He's hollowed out every democratic institution we have - time and time again - and to preserve our democracy, we need to protect ourselves from such security threats.

A court system is a billion times more likely to be insulated from tyranny by majority than the political Cabinet.

Your are not a Citizen of the South Pacific. Please restrict your participation to your appeal thread.

(02-22-2015, 04:53 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Your are not a Citizen of the South Pacific. Please restrict your participation to your appeal thread.

Only voting and running for office are rights restricted to citizens; they are the only rights you have the capacity to abrogate.

You are not even a Resident of the South Pacific. You have absolutely no rights in this region.

Because you started abrogating them.

There is no requirement for a resident to disclose their nation; you have no way of knowing if I do or do not have nation in TSP. Regardless, I choose to exercise free speech.

7. Citizenship may be temporarily removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet pending Criminal Charges. Within 48 hours of removing citizenship the Cabinet must present charges to the High Court. If 48 hours pass without charges being filed with High Court the removal of Citizenship will be automatically restored.

Alternate text which would put this power where it belongs which is in the hands of the Court.

In regards to the last sentence:
What about the possibility that the court could be unable to operate due to lack of appropriate number of justices to carry out legal procedure? A specific time constraint could allow one to loophole their way back into the region with proper timing.

Quote:7. Citizenship may be temporarily removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet pending Criminal Charges. Within 48 hours of removing citizenship the Cabinet must present charges to the High Court. If 48 hours pass without charges being filed with High Court the removal of Citizenship will be automatically restored.

This entire thing assumes you cannot be a security risk without having committed a crime. Our criminal code is limited to treason with regards to security. This misses the point of the decision entirely - the cabinet is fully aware that Belschaft has not been convicted of a crime, but he is, nonetheless, a security risk for The South Pacific.

Furthermore,

Let's hypothesise you're right and we shouldn't be removing people's citizenships unless they're convicted of a specific crime (something you've argued only since it was used against Belschaft). Your proposed system is absolutely untenable - everyone has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Under our current system, nobody is saying Belschaft has committed a crime, while actions are taken to remove a security threat. Under your system, Belschaft's citizenship is revoked under a criminal investigation before he is even charged. It's a batty, unethical miscarriage of justice. 

(02-22-2015, 12:01 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(02-22-2015, 09:59 AM)southern bellz Wrote: I don't know how this law isn't horrifying to everyone.  The Cabinet has an unchecked ability to strip citizenship away from the entire region with no due process, no checks and balances by simply saying X is a security threat.  And I havent even really seen one member of the cabinet think why this might be concerning to people who are not in the cabinet.

So far we have 21 citizens who are active to vote in that poll.  If all 6 cabinet members supported their own actions, and the entire active region opposed it, legally there is nothing that can be done to overturn it.  That's only a 71% threshold.  The assembly check is a joke because it is unable to override the cabinet.

On top of this, I think it is scary that our cabinet seems to not even be able to be bothered to TALK to the CSS before taking action such as this.  This power should rest with the CSS, and have a judicial appeal process.

Well, in complete fairness, three of the five CSS members are in the Cabinet currently. I'll agree that the other members should have been briefed on this, and it was an oversight, based on the diffusion of power.

Likewise, I understand why this is a concern, we don't want the government running around kicking out dissent. I suspect the push back you're feeling is that this wasn't an issue when you, Bel, Hile and HEM were part of the government but suddenly becomes a grave concern when someone decides to use the power legally given to them.

However, I'm more than willing to this power in the hands of the CSS if you like.

Sounds good to me. I think this makes much more sense to be in the hands of the CSS. I also feel that citizenship shouldn't be able to be indefinitely suspended.

I think this is a reasonable, forward thinking change that protects the region from potential abuse.