| LegComm: Accepted Charter Amendment |
SB, it was an illusion that things were settling down. Those of us who were calling for something to be done weren't posting, not because the issue was going away, but because we knew there was a pending discussion in the Cabinet.
I can guarantee that the forums would be going through at least of month of this during a trial if the Cabinet had not acted. There would be much more ruckus right now.
What I would like to propose is that we amend this section so that is does bby the CSS (our SECURITY institution deciding who's a SECURITY threat), and lower the repeal margin to something less extreme, even a supermajority of two-thirds.
(02-21-2015, 02:13 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: 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. That's just the point Kris - you(collective) did follow the Charter, and the Charter, as it presently stands allowed a longstanding citizen to be striped of his citizenship. The reason it seems dubious is because the justification that has been given to the Assembly, and by extension the general public, seems to point to a series of action taken some time ago which were not pursued at the time ie OBT What has changed since charges over that affair were never bought, when Bel had obviously posed a security threat, to the point a few days ago when he suddenly became one again and warranted this draconian intervention? In the interests of transparency the reasons for the Cabinets decision need to become public, or else you feed the "oligarchy conspiracy", seemingly proving that any indication that The Coalition is facing any sort of criticism or opposition results in a crisis being called and "security" invoked as a lock-down device. Shoot first, ask questions later eh?
If we truly were the dictators you say we are, I can guarantee that you would have been removed from this region months ago.
Fortunately, for you, the Cabinet and the region at large, we are not dictators, and we have only removed someone's citizenship once, when it was clear that their past actions, and current attitude, made them a threat. Now, I am really tired with explaining over and over again why Belschaft was a security threat now, as opposed to back in October. I have said it many times, and people keep asking. So I am going to stop explaining, and kindly ask people to read my previous posts, which at this point all say pretty much the same. (02-21-2015, 02:36 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: In the interests of transparency the reasons for the Cabinets decision need to become public Simple enough: read our statement. The reasons are there. You not believing them is an entirely different matter, and I'm afraid I don't want to spend my Saturday convincing you. 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
Already read it, and, as a courtesy to yourself just re-read it
tl:dr He believed there was something dodgy about Unibot & Glen Rhodes & took steps to counter their growing influence in TSP It would seem that disagreeing with these two is more dangerous for your health in TSP The statement says that he has returned to politicking - in a political simulation game isn't that to be expected? Do you or the cabinet have proof that he is hatching another attempt? A citizen can have the best interests of his region at heart without having to agree with the current government
Distortilla,
It isn't that he returned to politicking, it's that he brought a defamation charge against the people who forgave him to state that not only did he never apologize for his illegal actions but he also was going to file charges against anyone who said so. He brought his upon himself by basically negating the reasons he was forgiven in the first place (which I will admit was a mistake - but I also think part of the problem lies in the fact that the government has no arbiter or attorney general to file cases on the behalf of the government rather then individuals which makes court cases highly individual and also this sense that it doesn't matter what someone did for a region in the past it doesn't excuse their unethical behavior). For a person to be running for office and also stating that their illegal actions, which they apologized for, were all a lie is seriously disturbing and a threat to security. Do I need to explain it further or do you follow this? Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
(02-21-2015, 02:36 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: That's just the point Kris - you(collective) did follow the Charter, and the Charter, as it presently stands allowed a longstanding citizen to be striped of his citizenship. A long standing citizen that blatantly broke the law, confessed to the crime, attempted to blackmail his way back in, claims he has committed no crime months after his confession, incriminated himself further and the law could not be more against him. (02-21-2015, 02:36 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: The reason it seems dubious is because the justification that has been given to the Assembly, and by extension the general public, seems to point to a series of action taken some time ago which were not pursued at the time ie OBT At the time 2/3 of The High Court were conspirators of the crime and we have not had enough Justices to carry out legal action against ANYONE until very recently. (02-21-2015, 02:36 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: What has changed since charges over that affair were never bought, when Bel had obviously posed a security threat, to the point a few days ago when he suddenly became one again and warranted this draconian intervention? We now have enough Justices to enact legal actions and some of us have been demanding a trial and there is new evidence (again, which incriminates him further.) (02-21-2015, 02:36 PM)Ditortilla Wrote: In the interests of transparency the reasons for the Cabinets decision need to become public, or else you feed the "oligarchy conspiracy", seemingly proving that any indication that The Coalition is facing any sort of criticism or opposition results in a crisis being called and "security" invoked as a lock-down device. The reasons HAVE been made public: http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1831.html http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1817.html The only one that believes in the Oligarchical Conspiracy is YOU!!!
As it currently stands, the 75% needed to overturn the cabinet decision will never pass. Why? Cabinet members get the chance to vote on it being overturned too, and they are extremely unlikely to change their mind.
I feel the 75% needs to change and/or cabinet members should be unable to vote on the appeal. As a minimum.
That is complicated. What about in the recent vote to prevent NeeNee from gaining citizenship? Should this apply in that vote too?
The cabinet have the right to vote, they can choose to abstain but they don't need to. Being a member of the cabinet shouldn't prevent you from having a vote in major decisions. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
Why should Cabinet members be barred from the vote? Their votes carry no more weight than the rest of us. I'm extremely unlikely to change my mind either. Should I not be allowed to vote on it too?
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |