| LegComm: Accepted Charter Amendment |
I support a trial, and do not know what I am a witness too. Notice how in none of the logs posted I am involved? How I wasn't involved in the hidden forums? I play this game with my heart on my sleeve. Have any of you ever had doubt where I stood on a position? Or felt that I talked to you differently in private than I do in public? I am not a sneak.
I simply don't agree with anything Bels really said or did. I expressed my disappointment when the OBLT story broke, I privately told him I was not going to be voting for him for Minister of the Army, and I think what he said to Tsu was nasty. I don't want to be lumped into a Bels defender here, because I don't support anything what he did, and think there is grounds for a crime here. There is a lot of he said / she said here, personally petty issues so I can't say if I think Bels is guilty of a crime. And I believe the courts are the one to properly handle it. Now the entire forum is shitted up with absolute nonsense again, when this issue was more or less starting to be resolved in the courts in a organized manner where we have due process. If you don't believe that each side should be able to have a back and forth and than have an impartial 3rd party determine guilt to resolve crime, and instead people should be stripped of rights without any due process, we have very different ideas of justice. I also don't agree with how the cabinet ignored it and forgave him when it happened, and then when they have been taken to trial they now are citing it as a critical security issue, warranting of a permanent stripping of citizenship without due process. The people who Bels took to court retaliated politically against him by stripping him of citizenship. I think ONLY after a fair trial is when any citizens should be permanently stripped of rights. I was just as outraged and stood up just as loudly when Unibot was banned via admin action. I think this is as horrifying of an action this government can take.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Southern Bellz:
So attempting to manipulate elections to take the Cabinet, abuse it's power to have Unibot and Sandaoguo removed from the region, and then denying that any wrongdoing was ever done, is not being a security threat? Give me a break. If you cannot grasp the gravity of what Belschaft did, then there is no point in continuing to debate this issue. We have all made up our minds, and are obviously not going to change. Let me close by pointing out my confusion with people saying that not having citizenship means not having rights. I wrote the Bill of Rights, so I feel with enough authority to say that non-citizen residents do have rights, except voting and running for office. Those two rights are, not coincidentally, the things that made Belschaft a security threat. How about we give the Cabinet credit where credit is due, instead of assuming that, just because you disagree with the decision, we are now the Inner Party. - For the record, the Cabinet started discussing citizenship removal before anyone even spoke about taking this to trial. So no, this was by no means a politically motivated decision. 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 (02-21-2015, 01:25 PM)Ryccia Wrote: No way. I understand that it is a bit unfair, but its meant to be with good intentions. I have not seen any shortcomings to this Article, why cancel it? I trust the Cabinet. However the Cabinet can then remove that citizenship again if it wishes to. The reason Bel was considered to be a security threat was because he had "shown no remorse" however he made an apologue. Last time I checked making an apologue is showing remorse. I agree with southern belz, the Cabinet removed Bel's citizenship to avoid trial shutting him up for good. Imagine if the wrong people got in to the Cabinet they could remove anyone's citizenship if they liked and it would be completely legal. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
(02-21-2015, 01:32 PM)Punchwood Wrote: I agree with southern belz, the Cabinet removed Bel's citizenship to avoid trial shutting him up for good. No, we didn't. 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 (02-21-2015, 01:28 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: So attempting to manipulate elections to take the Cabinet, abuse it's power to have Unibot and Sandaoguo removed from the region, and then denying that any wrongdoing was ever done, is not being a security threat? Give me a break. He made an apologue you and everyone accepted that apologue. You and the Cabinet decided not to remove citizenship because you believed he was sorry, however when a trial comes up you remove his citizenship, four months later. I would like to see these logs, I believe you however I want proof to be sure. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
Was the CSS consulted for this decision? Because I would imagine consulting them would be the first step of the process if the Cabinet felt there was an urgent security risk warranting of permanently stripping citizenship without trial.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I am against this as well. The security of the region should not be a popularity election. It is a decision in the best interest of the region. Furthermore:
Article 2.5 of The Charter The right to defend themselves in the judicial system of the Coalition of The South Pacific with all the guarantees of a speedy hearing and due process of law. Belschaft still has the right to a defense, so there WILL be a trial. As far as his apology, at this point we all know it was a load of crap. We gave him the benefit of the doubt and he spat on it. His behavior as of late severely contradicts his behavior at the time he made that "apology."
(02-21-2015, 01:40 PM)Punchwood Wrote: He made an apologue you and everyone accepted that apologue. You and the Cabinet decided not to remove citizenship because you believed he was sorry, however when a trial comes up you remove his citizenship, four months later. (02-21-2015, 01:59 PM)TAC Wrote: We gave him the benefit of the doubt and he spat on it. His behavior as of late severely contradicts his behavior at the time he made that "apology." (02-21-2015, 01:40 PM)Punchwood Wrote: I would like to see these logs, I believe you however I want proof to be sure. No. Records from the Cabinet Office remain sealed for at least eight months, as per the Code of Laws. 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
(02-21-2015, 01:41 PM)southern bellz Wrote: Was the CSS consulted for this decision? Because I would imagine consulting them would be the first step of the process if the Cabinet felt there was an urgent security risk warranting of permanently stripping citizenship without trial. As it was a Cabinet decision, I guess that it was decided in private chambers and therefore not subject to Assembly scrutiny That the Cabinet can legally act in such a cavalier fashion because the Charter permits it does not however make it right, which is why I believe this thread was started - no organisation, establishment or group should be above the law. The grounds for Belschaft's expulsion were related to the failed OBT conspiracy,.presumable constituting 1. Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition However if that is indeed the justification then the removal of his citizenship has not only deprived Belschaft of his right to a fair trial, but has also drawn a veil over the complete conspiracy and any implication that it extended far beyond the named co-conspirators
Fine. We purposefully removed Belschaft's citizenship to avoid a trial and silence his voice. He was not a legitimate security threat, we simply were tired of having to face him in the polls. We believe ourselves to be above the law, and never follow the Charter.
Please open recall proceedings on all of us, since we are the big bad wolf. (Of course, we did follow the Charter, and the Charter is the law, but let's not pay attention to such bothersome details.) 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 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 6 Guest(s) |