There have been recent calls to utilize the procedures contained in Article 7 to make various organizations Prohibited Groups. As this is quite serious, I thought we should make sure we agree that the legislation is right first. Any thoughts on if we should be making any changes to the following:

Article 7: Prohibited Regions and Organizations


1. The Cabinet and/or Committee for State Security (C SS) may request the Assembly designate foreign regions and organizations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Prohibited Groups. Such requests must be accompanied with a report detailing those activities that meet the definitions of hostility detailed in clause 2 of this Article.
2.For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that (1) were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific; (2) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; (3) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or (4) groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations.
3. For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement, provided the target-region is not an ally or a region that The South Pacific is at war with, shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.
4. Membership in a designated Prohibited Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of citizenship, following a 7 day grace period to allow renunciation of membership in the Prohibited Group. The seven days grace period begins immediately after the notification of the citizen in question that they are a member of a Prohibited Group by the Vice Delegate or a member of the CSS.
5. Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited Group to the High Court within 7 days of their citizenship being revoked. The High Court shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of citizenship revocation.
6. Applicants for citizenship who are members of a designated Prohibited Group shall not be granted citizenship unless they renounce membership in the Prohibited Group.
7. Membership in a designated Prohibited Group does not constitute a criminal offense; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.
8. Regions at war with The South Pacific or with which The South Pacific is at war shall be automatically considered Prohibited Groups. The Assembly may further designate Prohibited Groups via a vote with a 60% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Prohibited Group designation via a vote with a 60% majority in favor.
9. The following regions and organizations are deemed Prohibited Groups within The South Pacific: None.
10. The Chair of the Assembly shall update clause 9 of this article to reflect The South Pacific's current Prohibited Groups.


Sorry about the formatting, always happens when I copy/paste on my phone.

Reply

I've fixed the formatting for you, Aram. No actual content has been altered.

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

Reply

Thanks Kris

Reply

2.For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that (1) were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific; (2) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; (3) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; (4) groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations; or (5)  any region/organization deemed a very real threat without having committed any hostile act directly towards The South Pacific.

Thoughts?

---

I am a Super Villain

Animefan666 (me): One day I'd like to wipe out humanity...and maybe conquer the city. Ya know, the usual.
Then, once everyone is a zombie, we all starve and Serling dies. A perfect end to a doomed city.
Zombie61: /Rename Animefan666 to The-Brain.
Animefan666: So, now that we've established that I am Brain, who will be my not so brainy sidekick Pinky?

---

Kris: You suddenly remind me of Magneto's White House Speech in Days of Future Past.
TAC: So who's gonna be my right hand mutant?

---

Fortunado: And now i need something to restore my faith in humanity... been a struggle to stop losing it.
LeSageStupide: Have you ever just stared at TAC's avatar for a while? It helps a lot.

Reply

2.For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that (1) were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific; (2) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; (3) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; (4) groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations; or (5)  any region/organization deemed a very real threat without having committed any hostile act directly towards The South Pacific.

Thoughts?

I think you'd have to rework the language as I'm not sure how you would define a 'very real threat' but I do agree there should be a clause in there that is proactive as opposed to reactive.

How about the following? (changes in red)

2.For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that

(1) were are or have been actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or a region or organisation with which The South Pacific has a formal treaty with;
(2) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific;
(3) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or
(4) groups that have or have , successful or otherwise, attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations; or
(5) may reasonably be considered as likely to engage in any of the actions set out in points (1) to (4) of this section in the future

And should that be expanded to include regions with which we have a formal treaty? (amendment suggested in blue).

I like 'reasonably' as a term because it has some very comforting synonyms (justly, wisely, honestly, etc).

(This post was last modified: 04-17-2015, 05:06 PM by Overseer Staedtler.)

Reply

2.4 causes and issue in that ths SPSF can raid. If a defender unit from a region goes against it is that an attempt to sabotage military operations? Similarly, if the SPSF joins a liberation or a defense, is that sabotage?

Real-life Girls

Reply

(1) were are or have been actively involved

"Were" is right actually, because I believe the "have been" means 'are' - it's more active than 'were'. I do like where the draft is going, however.

(This post was last modified: 04-17-2015, 10:10 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

(1) were are or have been actively involved

"Were" is right actually, because I believe the "have been" means 'are' - it's more active than 'were'. I do like where the draft is going, however.

I'm happy with 'were' if it is thought a better use of language. Thinking about it, by adding in (5) 'were' is prolly a better fit anyway now. What I really want is for the language to be nailed down as tightly as possible to prevent ambiguity and avoid the need for questions to the Court on definitions.

Reply

2.4 causes and issue in that ths SPSF can raid. If a defender unit from a region goes against it is that an attempt to sabotage military operations? Similarly, if the SPSF joins a liberation or a defense, is that sabotage?

Hmmm... I'll be honest and say that I don't know much about the military side of gameplay. How would the following revision:

2.For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that

(1) were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or a region or organisation with which The South Pacific has a recognised treaty with;
(2) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific;
(3) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or
(4) groups that have or have , successful or otherwise, attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations in circumstances where it is acting in defence of The South Pacific or in defence of a region/organisation that The South Pacific has a recognised treaty with; or
(5) may reasonably be considered as likely to engage in any of the actions set out in points (1) to (4) of this section in the future

Does that give the SPSF enough room and avoid making defenders prohibited groups?

Also, perhaps a key thing lacking in the Charter is definitions. In real legislation you would find a set of definitions and I'm wondering if that would help reduce ambiguity - something that has been the subject of a lot of the recent legal questions.

For example at the end of the Charter you could add a section on definitions and include the following:

'A recognised Treaty for the purpose of Article 7 shall be one that has been adopted by The Assembly in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Charter of The South Pacific.'

(This post was last modified: 04-18-2015, 07:57 AM by Overseer Staedtler.)

Reply

I like your edits Hopolis and I agree about definitions, that would help clarify things.

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

 

Reply