The South Pacific
[DISCUSSION] Persona Non Grata Act - Printable Version

+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [DISCUSSION] Persona Non Grata Act (/thread-6716.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Belschaft - 12-27-2018

@Beepee - Could you explain to me why the Delegate & Cabinet needs the power to ban people from TSP, beyond that which it has already been granted via the Proscription Act?

I’d also like you justify the complete lack of any criteria to qualify for PNG status and the lack of an appeals or review process beyond process errors. Why exactly should it be possible to ban people from TSP arbitrarily? You’ve said that this law is needed to strengthen our security, but why? In addition, doesn’t a process like this that is so open to abuse reduce our security by creating a mechanism that would “legalise” an internal coup by the Delegate & Cabinet or members of such?

Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - sandaoguo - 12-27-2018

While I believe our regions desperately needs the common-sense ability to issue diplomatic PNG sanctions— I’m uncomfortable including legislators under this. Legislators would fall under a proscription, or a criminal prosecution. If there are reasons the Assembly would want to remove an individual legislator that aren’t within the Proscription Act or the Criminal Code, those laws should be amended. Being here in bad faith could be handled under existing law, via petition to the Chair, and the Assembly could pass a more detailed explanation of what being here in bad faith means.

But the usefulness of a PNG is that it can be applied to *foreigners* with little red tape, as diplomatic punishment for wrongdoing. The ability to do it without all the red tape relies on the fact that foreigners do not have rights in our region. Legislators *do* have rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Beepee - 12-27-2018

Thanks @Belschaft and @sandaoguo, also @Nat

To avoid couping and apply only to foreigners his about this additional sentence...

Under 1(1):
An individual may be declared non grata prior to arriving in or before reentering TSP, or if they are on ambassadorial duties from another region.

I hope to get back to your other questions later this morning.

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Nat - 12-27-2018

(12-27-2018, 04:28 PM)Beepee Wrote: Thanks @Belschaft and @sandaoguo, also @Nat

To avoid couping and apply only to foreigners his about this additional sentence...

Under 1(1):
An individual may be declared non grata prior to arriving in or before reentering TSP, or if they are on ambassadorial duties from another region.

I hope to get back to your other questions later this morning.

This allays a number of my concerns. Is it possible to add an exemption for TSP members on official business elsewhere? I assume we would not use a PNG declaration on members of our military, for example.

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Beepee - 12-27-2018

@Belschaft

Thanks so much... I think your second question was.

"I’d also like you justify the complete lack of any criteria to qualify for PNG status and the lack of an appeals or review process beyond process errors. Why exactly should it be possible to ban people from TSP arbitrarily? "

I guess I was taking a cue from the EWS proscription case judgement, and I can absolutely see why it would be concerning. (I suggest some changes below.)

So as I read the EWS case, there are few sentences I think are important for my thinking the main one being ..

Based on the evidence submitted by the Cabinet, it is clear that Ever Wandering Souls is no friend to the South Pacific, and that he has repeatedly expressed a severe dislike for the Coalition, and many of the individuals who form its government. Ever Wandering Souls has made it clear that he wishes to see the Coalition overthrown, and would encourage and applaud anyone who did; that said, under the Proscription Act, this is not sufficient to warrant a designation of hostility.

If encouraging a coup/overthrow of the Coalition is not sufficient to warrant a hostile desingation and we can call it "unfriendly". I wasn't sure if designating someone "unfriendly" was too broad? What do you think?

Let me try and explain further.

So if, for example, I lost my patience with the Coalition Exec and said " you're the worst! ... We should replace you!". Am I "unfriendly" to the coalition? Maybe yes, maybe no. (Let it be known here I love the Exec and Coalition with all my heart!)

If I said "... I would applaud anyone who overthrows the exec!".... EWS judgement suggests that is unfriendly, but I struggle to see a significant difference in the intent of the wording.

Where i struggled was... How Would the Court deem the words different? My conclusion, which im happy to be swayed on, was... It has to be a judgement call of the Executive.

Where i went .... is it down to the words being repeated that is... I said it more than once, in line with "repeatedly expressed" from the EWS case. But do we really need someone to say it 20 times or 'repeatedly' to say we don't think you're friendly?

But then I thought, what about if it's not just 'unfriendly'.... what if it's ambivalent or antipathetic towards TSP?

I was then reminded of a statement Roavin made that being too specific, no matter how well intentioned, will lead to problems.

As a result, I was trying to allow a broad a church as possible and to allow us to temper that broad church through this discussion to find out where our comfort zone lay.

How about adding in this at Article 2(1)...

(1)The "PNG Notice" must:
• clearly identify the named individual, 
• state the date on which the Notice is to take effect,
• provide a justification as to the why the individual has been named, and
• be signed by at least 3 members of the Executive.

and Under 6 add a new article in between (1) and (2)


(X) The High Court may also consider appeals regarding the justification for the PNG Notice and whether that justification is sufficient to merit the the issuing of a PNG Notice.

Would this then it bring in line with the charter in terms of the High courts ability to review any determination of the Cabinet?

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Nat - 12-27-2018

May I clarify something with you @Beepee - does this new addition mean the court will only consider the wording of the justification itself or will it consider the evidence which substantiates that justification? That is, if the justification said Bob planned to overthrow the region, could the court overturn the PNG designation if there was nothing at all to suggest that (i.e. it was completely made up).

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Beepee - 12-27-2018

Hi @Nat

I would envisage, like proscription, any evidence would form part of an appeal case from the Cabinet and therefore be considered that way. The evidence itself would not be the appeal.

So if the Exec made up something, it would generally be thrown out by the Court.

Does that answer the question?

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Beepee - 12-27-2018

@Belschaft

Hi again, sorry about the multiple answer posts rather than a consolidated.... I hope it's not too frustrating.

You asked Could you explain to me why the Delegate & Cabinet needs the power to ban people from TSP, beyond that which it has already been granted via the Proscription Act?

Sands has raised some reasons and I touched on some of the points in my earlier post. In particular the difference between hostile and unfriendly as per the EWS case, Proscription limits to hostile only.

Further, the EWS judgement further limits hostility to such actions already being taken.

"It is not sufficient for an individual to express a desire or wish to commit acts of hostility, or to witness such acts be committed by others; it must be proven that it is substantially more likely than not that they have already committed acts of hostility." 

I try to reconcile that with this...

"Ever Wandering Souls has made it clear that he wishes to see the Coalition overthrown, and would encourage and applaud anyone who did; that said, under the Proscription Act, this is not sufficient to warrant a designation of hostility."

If saying "I wish to see the Coalition overthrown" or to encourage a coup is insufficient to warrant a designation of or an already committed act of hositlity. My question of this, is a (attempted) coup would actually need to have been undertaken to use the proscription act to come into force?

Furthermore, it may also be the case people, who due to their (previous) actions may be unlikely to be welcomed to (or back into) TSP with open arms. This could be because their actions were disruptive (perhaps?) Or caused demonstrable harm to a person/persons? (Perhaps? Perhaps!)

These would not fall under the hostile 'foreginers' definitions as set out in the proscription act and currently actions otherwise are are limited solely to legislators within TSP (bad behaviour clause).

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Beepee - 12-27-2018

@Nat

Sorry I think I missed this question.


it possible to add an exemption for TSP members on official business elsewhere? I assume we would not use a PNG declaration on members of our military, for example.


I don't know if that s necessary? Our military is working for us. Or am I missing something?

RE: Discussion: Persona Non Grata Act - Amerion - 12-28-2018

Just a note that I've amended the title of this thread to place 'Discussion' in square brackets.

Please bear with me because this may get long ...

Currently, we have two pieces of legislation which in one way or another touch on the subject of 'undesirable individuals'. Namely, the Proscription Act and Article 4 of the Criminal Code.[1] As Roavin has highlighted here, Article 4 has been superseded by the Proscription Act. Nevertheless, I personally believe that both should be repealed and the Assembly should draft a new law relating to such individuals.

I think proscriptions — as it is currently designed — is too prone to controversy and damaging to the Cabinet and the region as a whole. By allowing both the Cabinet and the Council on Regional Security to issue proscriptions, we have inadvertently caused what should be purely a security issue to have political ramifications, and in a way, given comfort to our gameplay adversaries who delight in the extra ammunition. I'd argue that by the nature of the institution itself, only the CRS should have the right to issue proscriptions for it is their field of expertise. Some may feel that we are diminishing the Cabinet's authority, and while yes, I am empathetic to that point of view, I think Cabinet Ministers have such broad responsibilities in their respective departments that there is already much to keep them occupied. Likewise, some may also feel that the Assembly should have a say in these matters in either a direct or an oversight capacity. Perhaps even more importantly, that the Court should continue to have a role in ensuring that whichever institution, be it the Cabinet or the CRS, that they do not overstep their authority.

It is on the basis of these beliefs of mine that I think it would be better if the aforementioned pieces of legislation were repealed in favour of a unified Persona Non Grata law which places the power of proscriptions with the CRS, with continued oversight by the Courts, and perhaps, with the potential for overturning such proscriptions by the Assembly (with a high threshold).

[1] An excerpt of Article 4 has been included in the spoiler below for your convenience.

[+]Article 4 of the Criminal Code