| Security Threats |
How would we use the prohibited groups law against individuals?
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
We wouldnt. I'm assuming serial rabble rousers are mostly part of groups and people who already banned such as frak and gov.
We'd use the law I purposed to have a system to deal with security threats in a timely manner.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I fear that assumption does not always conform to what happens in reality. Sometimes individuals do become security threats, and the government should have ways of fighting against that. Creating more red tape for a system that already works is not the solution.
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
The point is, SB, the Assembly should not always be the answer. We have security institutions and we need to entrust them with our security. The whole reason why we're so weak as a region on security is because we allow threats to politick their way through the Assembly, by manipulating and exploiting a populace of relatively new players who don't know the history of NS.
Why do we have the CSS if it can't act? Why do we allow the Cabinet to act, and then let their actions be undermined by a the equivalent of a celebrity press blitz? We do not suddenly lose our status as a democracy if we refuse to provide a million ways for security threats to use politics to reverse the decisions of our trusted security officials.
I never said the cabinet shouldn't have the ability to act, but the cabinet shouldn't have an unchecked ability to remove citizenship forever. My current idea gives them one month to act before any other oversight is required.
The current system has zero red tape, and a joke of an assembly oversight. I think that needs to change and will be working on a proposal to change it. I'm open to other ideas and am willing to compromise on what I have wrote, but the status quo is unacceptable to me. If you don't want to work on a compromise, that's fine, but I invited you to the process. And this is a discussion on potential solutions to what I view as a problem. If you don't agree that what I said is a problem, your message has been received, and I would appreciate allowing me space to work with others who agree there is an issue to develop a proposal and encourage you to vote against the ultimate proposal. My goal here is to come up with a proposal, and I want to do it in public and I don't want to repeatedly argue the basic premise. It's your right to do so if you want, but that will lead me to just work with like minded nations privately in order to work on this and I don't want to do that.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I think the prohibited groups method is inherantly flawed. It's such a massive legal hammer than nobody wants to use it.
Case in point: Would the Assembly use the 'prohibited group' status against The Empire? How'll about The New Pacific Order?
How can you say that the assembly is against it when it hasn't been honestly proposed and discussed in the assembly? In fact, I specifically mentioned considering making the NPO a prohibited group in my other thread.
I can't speak for the region, but I'm open to make both of them a prohibited group. It's not the Assembly's fault that cabinet decided to act with one off citizenship denials before having a real discussion about it with the assembly whether it should be a prohibited group.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Then I would need to leave the NPO as a non-WA citizen.
Or I could stick around in there, and get removed here. Or remove from both. Oh, the decisions! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Citizenship denial is a perfectly legal and acceptable power of the Vice Delegate.
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, but it's completely unfair to say that the cabinet has to take all of these executive actions because the assembly is unwilling to make a prohibited group prohibited. If that is the cabinet's opinion, the fact is, they decided that before having an honest conversation about if a group should be prohibited with the assembly.
Unless I completely missed a thread where we just discussed the merits of making these groups prohibited, in that case I apologize.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |