No other region in this game allows non-residents to challenge anything in Court. I don’t see any good reason why we should. Non-residents have no rights, nor should they.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

My understanding of proscriptions against either a region or an organisation is our government views the threat posed by such a group to be so serious as to necessitate the barring of its members from our community, lest it does harm to TSP.

Given this hypothetical threat, I do not think it wise that an individual who belongs to this group is allowed entry into our region. Period. --snip--

Thanks for your reply @Amerion
 
I do not presently understand how allowing them to appeal would create a security threat to TSP. During the appeal, the individual could be banned from the region and only allowed to post in the court area of the forum. Apart from posting in the appeal thread, they would not have any more access to TSP than a random person from the public would.

However, perhaps I am overlooking something about this issue.
 

No other region in this game allows non-residents to challenge anything in Court. I don’t see any good reason why we should. Non-residents have no rights, nor should they.

Thank you for your insight @sandaoguo - it would be appreciated if you could answer the following question so I can understand your position better:

If non-residents were not able to use the courts, how could we ensure that the border control decisions made against them are not arbitrary or even discriminatory in nature?

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

No other region in this game allows non-residents to challenge anything in Court. I don’t see any good reason why we should. Non-residents have no rights, nor should they.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you're suggesting is basically a big catch-22 for those affected though.

You can't challenge the proscription in court because you're not a resident.
You're not a resident because of the proscription.

Security should not be above accountability.

Reply

Thanks for your reply @Amerion
 
I do not presently understand how allowing them to appeal would create a security threat to TSP. During the appeal, the individual could be banned from the region and only allowed to post in the court area of the forum. Apart from posting in the appeal thread, they would not have any more access to TSP than a random person from the public would.

However, perhaps I am overlooking something about this issue.

It is not so much the prospect of them appealing which in and of itself would constitute a threat to the Coalition. It is what happens after that concerns me. If we operate on the assumption that the proscription is grounded in facts (as they often are) and the region in question is indeed a threat to the region, then allowing any member of said-region into TSP is a security lapse.

I myself struggle with this issue, to be perfectly honest. There is no simple solution which can account for a myriad of scenarios. As such, I'm quite interested in hearing what others think of your proposal as well.

Reply

It is not so much the prospect of them appealing which in and of itself would constitute a threat to the Coalition. It is what happens after that concerns me. If we operate on the assumption that the proscription is grounded in facts (as they often are) and the region in question is indeed a threat to the region, then allowing any member of said-region into TSP is a security lapse.

I understand that any proscriptions which are done, even if ruled illegal, are done for good reasons. However, surely there are better legislative fixes than just refusing to allow appeals on region/organisation proscriptions and thus removing oversight from the court. I will try and see if I can think of anything that would alleviate concerns.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

@Amerion (and others) - would something like Section 5 (below) alleviate your concerns about allowing an appeal?

It would give the government seven days after a successful appeal to make a new proscription, if they felt it was warranted. Would this provide sufficient time to rework the original proscription?

4. Judicial Review

(1) Individuals, regions or organizations subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court.

(2) Individuals who can demonstrate they have been directly affected by the proscription of a region or organization may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court.

(2)(3) Individuals subject to a proscription of a region or organization may challenge the issuing authority's determination of their membership in that region or organization in the High Court. 

(3)(4) For the purposes above, the individual or an individual representing the region or organization must be granted adequate permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.

(5) Should the High Court rule that a proscription or its usage is invalid, the ruling shall not take effect until seven days after it has been delivered.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

Not particularly to be honest. The central issue is that I am disinclined to make allowance for an individual to appeal a proscription of a region/organisation when that group itself does not wish to do so.

If the individual feels so strongly about the proscription that they are willing to come here and argue against it then surely they can petition their region/organisation to appeal.

Reply

@Amerion - what about if it is reworked to something like below? That way, the court can essentially block every region/organization appeal filed by an individual. I think it would be better though as it does give the court the ability to accept such an appeal if it thinks special circumstances warrant it doing so. I would imagine this would be an extremely uncommon occurrence.

 

4. Judicial Review

(1) Individuals, regions or organizations subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court.
 

1. If satisfied that special circumstances warrant it to do so, the High Court may grant an individual special leave to appeal the proscription of a region or organization.
   

(2) Individuals subject to a proscription of a region or organization may challenge the issuing authority's determination of their membership in that region or organization in the High Court. 

(3) For the purposes above, the individual or an individual representing the region or organization must be granted adequate permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.  

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

No other region in this game allows non-residents to challenge anything in Court. I don’t see any good reason why we should. Non-residents have no rights, nor should they.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you're suggesting is basically a big catch-22 for those affected though.

You can't challenge the proscription in court because you're not a resident.
You're not a resident because of the proscription.

Security should not be above accountability.

And you’re proscribed because you’ve been a threat. I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Every single proscription ever passed in this region has been because *direct threats of destruction* were made. Every single one, including Souls’.

Our region is not worse off by not having Empire here.

Our region is not worse off by not letting in Gameplayers *everybody knows* to wish ill will on TSP.

The desire some have here to provide legal protection to these players is beyond mystifying. It’s a naive refusal to recognize that there are downright assholes in this game, who don’t give a shit about our laws or our culture of democracy. Why on earth are you so intent on protecting them?

This kind of naïveté is a threat to our security, plain and simple.

The Cabinet and CRS are accountable to the people who matter— TSPers. Why should our government be accountable to Gameplayers who chat about how they want to raze us to the ground, ban everyone in our government, ban our admins, and install their own raider government?

This has been *the core problem* with how the Assembly has approached security. It’s abstract fantasy, rather than an acknowledgment of how the game operates.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 12-24-2018, 07:55 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

@Amerion - what about if it is reworked to something like below? That way, the court can essentially block every region/organization appeal filed by an individual. I think it would be better though as it does give the court the ability to accept such an appeal if it thinks special circumstances warrant it doing so. I would imagine this would be an extremely uncommon occurrence.

... The desire some have here to provide legal protection to these players is beyond mystifying. It’s a naive refusal to recognize that there are downright assholes in this game, who don’t give a shit about our laws or our culture of democracy ... Why should our government be accountable to Gameplayers who chat about how they want to raze us to the ground, ban everyone in our government, ban our admins, and install their own raider government? ...

@Nat, Glen's post actually summarises my opinion on this matter quite nicely — while I have no issue with extending or clarifying existing legislative protection for and with regards to regions & organisations, I'm personally not in favour of going out of our way to help people who have been declared by the government as a being threat to TSP.

(This post was last modified: 12-24-2018, 08:49 AM by Amerion.)

Reply