| LegComm: Accepted Charter Amendment |
|
I move to strike the following text from the Charter of the South Pacific:
Quote:7. Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet if a nation is found to be a security threat. Citizens removed for being a security threat may appeal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 75% majority vote in favor. This provision is undemocratic, and has caused this region no end of trouble. The executive should not have the ability to remove citizenship, though this doesn't even make sense, because if someone is a true security threat, shouldn't they be banned? I am sure it was written with good intentions, but I do not think our region benefits from this at this time. It is high time to get rid of this totalitarian provision.
Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.
i disagree and would vote against.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
I fully agree, so few should not have such power. I'm all for this.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
I would reword it to add that security threats may be banned from the forum. Since there is an appeals process (and maybe it should be clarified that the player will be given a special masking to appeal the decision).
Just clarifying here that I am against the striking this from the records but pro adding to it. 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
The thing that I like about this is that it isn't unilateral. The executive branch made a decision but it can be appealed to the legislative branch. Then if we get an judicial branch then there'll be another way to check the power.
It's not about limiting powers, an executive without and actual abilities is just a figurehead, its about making them balanced. 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
I disagree and would also vote against. How this has caused the region no end in trouble I have no idea, since it has only been used once, and with good justification. Tell me that we remove someone's citizenship for purely political reasons, or threaten to do so, and I'll agree we need to be controlled. But removing the citizenship of someone who precisely wanted to exploit elections for his benefit is not abuse, it's doing our job.
No. Fully against. 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
I agree, this is one of the least democratic actions I have seen, and the cabinet has used this clause to avoid going through trial. The CSS, experts on security, have not seemed to weigh in on the matter, despite the Cabinet citing cutting the CSS out of the loop as a reason Bels is a security threat.
I agree that the cabinet should have the means to react to security threats, but to strip someone of citizenship forever does not protect this region. It just takes away the rights of the citizens. Especially when there is no imminent threat to regional security. It is clear this clause makes The South Pacific a police state. If you "threaten regional order" they can strip of your rights. That's how it is. If you vaguely threaten security under this clause, you can have your citizenship taken away. I hope I am not the only one completely embarrassed of our cabinet's actions. I think they demonstrated that they are the real threat to regional security. You can not have a democracy where voting rights are stripped away by the political elite and political dissent is consider a security threat.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Oh southern bellz, there will be a trial. I hope your fervor about justice and democracy and despicable actions against our election fairness will be important to you then. In fact, since you're here- would you be willing to be a witness in that trial? As a former delegate and person who strongly believes in fairness? If so let me know here and I'll have my lawyer contact you.
The security risk issue is pretty clear. Belschaft was forgiven for being a security risk when his operation details first came out. Then, a few months later he went about stating that he never did anything wrong (thereby making it clear that he may be conducting another importing votes campaign without thinking its wrong) and started a defamation case against the people who forgave him. The larger problem is who protects the region from people like Belschaft? It's why I think we need to have someone who can on behalf of mere citizens like me, actually pursue electoral fraud and treason. After all, it should be treason and worthy of permanent banning for someone to undermine the legal and democratic elections to get rid of people they don't like. That action in itself is against everything the coalition stands for. 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
When this clause was added the Delegate had the authority to eject and ban a nation from the region.
When we did this there was a fear among some that this would be abused. Until this point it hasn't. If we remove this I would suggest replacing it with a clause that would allow the cabinet to remove/ban someone pending a trial.
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.
Plus, we can override the Cabinet denial with a 75+% vote in favour. Of course, if the fomer citizen submits an appeal.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |