Criminal Regions and Organisations Act

[Farengeto]

I see no issues.


Thirded.

[Sandaoguo]

I know that I said I would propose new language 3 days ago, but I was busy. However, I cannot support this bill as written. We need to limit what the proper targets are. I'm not comfortable giving legal cover to ban entire groups of people from the region based on fickle emotions, and that's exactly what is going to happen if this goes forward as currently written. Because it's already been seconded, it's going to vote in its current form. As such, should it pass, I will immediately discuss with the Cabinet an executive policy to limit what is considered a Criminal Group.

[Belschaft]

The legislation requires that either the CSS or the Cabinet request the designation. These are the groups responsible for developing our foreign and security policy; I believe they can be trusted to exercise judgement ans restraint.


We do not need limiting language - first the Cabinet/CSS and then the Assembly need to agree to the designation. The legislation targets groups deemed hostile - it is for the executive and the Assembly to decide what groups are hostile.

[Farengeto]

I agree with Bels here. It's got to go by the CSS/Cabinet then 60% of the Assembly. If we can't trust them (every level of TSP government) to make a decision on this, then I don't know who we would.

[Sandaoguo]

There's no shortage in history of people in TSP acting out of emotion. Witch hunts are very easy to let happen. The Cabinet and the CSS are not full of super-humans, so much more mature than everybody else. Guidance serves as a limiting principle on future governments that don't share the same views of this law as Belschaft. It is absolutely necessary to define which groups this is meant to target. It's a shame it wasn't included in the language, but it will most definitely be included in an executive policy.

[Punk D]

I have a question for clarification. Let's say we're at war with a region/organization. I believe this legislation makes that party a criminal group automatically. Once peace has been achieved, assuming that peace is possible, does the criminal group designation automatically go away as well? 

 

While I agree with Sandaoguo that TSP has had a history of emotional responses, usually the Assembly is not involved in the process. In this process the Assembly would have to approve the designation (provided we aren't in a war) and I do have trust in the Assembly to not be as emotional. Given the makeup of our assembly and many competing ideologies, I feel all the more secure that if the Assembly did decide to make a group criminal, the majority of TSP would favor it. What this bill does is move us (TSP) towards a less cosmopolitan environment and towards having people consider TSP their primary home. I do like the implications of this legislation from that perspective. 

[Unibot]

What this bill does is move us (TSP) towards a less cosmopolitan environment and towards having people consider TSP their primary home.

 

By declaring cosmopolitans, "criminals"? 

 

*sighs*

 

I think the only institution declaring people criminals in TSP should be the courts. That's what they are there for: to find guilt. As it stands now this bill is a political tool to condemn others before they are found guilty.

[Belschaft]

Unibot is once more talking utter nonsense. This legislation does not and cannot declare individuals criminals, and in fact explicitly states that membership of a prohibited group does not constitute a criminal offence; it is the group that is criminal, not individuals.

 

What it does do is prevent people from regions or organisations that are hostile to The South Pacific - groups we are at war with, for example - from attempting to subvert our region from within. The only individuals affected by this legislation at present would be members of The Greater German Reich and Gatesville - regions we are at war with - and I do not think that it is strange or unreasonable to deny citizenship to such people.

[Farengeto]

Keep in mind we're not talking banjections here. We're just talking about preventing member of organizations which are enemies of the state from holding citizenship in TSP. I hardly think it's unreasonable.

[Punk D]

My wording there could have been a little strong too. It makes TSP less cosmopolitan but not much less. At present, unless you're a member of Gatesville or the GGR you have free reign to do what you like. Even still, if you're a member of those regions you can just say you are but could be subject to having your citizenship barred.

 

Thinking about it more, it's not all that restrictive, but I would like to know about when we're no longer at war with a region is it automatically removed from the list?

[Belschaft]

I would imagine it would be; a declaration of war would have to be rescinded by the Assembly; as the Assembly's declaration of war is what placed the region on the list by logical extension its rescission would remove a region from the list. I am not however Court Justice and the interpretation of the law when such matters arise does not fall to me.

[Unibot]

<div>Unibot is once more talking utter nonsense. This legislation does not and cannot declare individuals criminals, and in fact explicitly states that membership of a prohibited group does not constitute a criminal offence; it is the group that is criminal, not individuals.
 
What it does do is prevent people from regions or organisations that are hostile to The South Pacific - groups we are at war with, for example - from attempting to subvert our region from within. The only individuals affected by this legislation at present would be members of The Greater German Reich and Gatesville - regions we are at war with - and I do not think that it is strange or unreasonable to deny citizenship to such people.
 

 

</div>
1. I do not think it is "utter nonsense" to extrapolate that members of a criminal group are in fact criminals. Otherwise why would you call a group of non-criminals, criminal? >_<

 

2. The only individuals affected by this legislation is not simply those who we are at war with - we could still just pass a 60% vote against them and bang, "criminal". Is TSP capable of this, even against people who shouldn't be labelled as "criminals", in the heat of the moment? Yes. 

[Belschaft]

"Membership of a designated Criminal Group does not constitute a criminal offence; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud"

 

Literally in the legislation. 

[Rebel-topia]

Ill have this up tomorrow. Its been a long weekend...

[Geomania]

 

 

Article 9: Criminal Regions and <b>Organisations</b>

1. The Cabinet and CSS may request the Assembly designate regions and organisations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Criminal Groups
   
2. Membership of a designated Criminal Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for immediate revocation of citizenship
   

 


 

This reads like someone could lose their citizenship without any sort of appeal. This clause is concerning to me.

 

 

 

 

Membership of a designated Criminal Group does not constitute a criminal offence; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud

 

Isn't this redundant? One of the qualifications for citizenship is that applicants disclose membership in other regions.

[Kris Kringle]

But there is no requirement to disclose any affiliation I might get after I've become a citizen.

[Belschaft]

 

<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 

Article 9: Criminal Regions and <b>Organisations</b>

1. The Cabinet and CSS may request the Assembly designate regions and organisations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Criminal Groups
   
2. Membership of a designated Criminal Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for immediate revocation of citizenship
   

 


 

This reads like someone could lose their citizenship without any sort of appeal. This clause is concerning to me. 

 

 

</div>
</blockquote>
What sort of appeal, exactly? "Yes, I am a member of Gatesville but the law shouldn't apply to me..." This only allows the revocation of citizenship where an individual is a member of a prohibited group, which is not the kind of thing that can be argued over - you are either a member or not a member. If someones citizenship is revoked by mistake then that can be quickly corrected.

[Unibot]

Wouldn't be surprised if this new designation of "criminal organization" is just to blast people we don't "like", without facing the political consequences for going to war, explictly. Another political move and well timed at that. 

[Belschaft]

Do you feel inclined to actually read the legislation Uni? If you do then you might be able to make informed criticism like Glen, and discuss what it actually does and not what your bizarre fantasy version of it does.

[Unibot]

Yes, yes I did read the legislation. I resent your accusation. The argument made fits perfectly within the parameters of the law you have weaved.

[HEM]

Question: Assuming I properly declared everything, if I held citizenship prior to another affiliation of mine being declared an "enemy", would I permitted to remain in the region unaffected by the status change of my other region?

[Unibot]

Membership of a designated Criminal Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for immediate revocation of citizenship

Your citizenship would not be grandfathered.

[Cormac]

Nor should it be. If a region is hostile to The South Pacific, a citizen of both regions then, frankly, needs to choose one or the other. Any citizen of The South Pacific who renounces citizenship in a hostile region would not be a citizen of that region and would not be affected by this legislation.

 

Unibot, you seem to be maintaining that the legislation in its entirety is bad unless I'm misunderstanding your post here. Is it really your position that even dual citizens of regions with which we are at war should not have their citizenship revoked?

[Unibot]

I do not see a problem with citizens not being allowed to maintain citizenship here if they are in a region we are at war with - but that's not the fullest extent of this proposal.

 

This proposal does not simply stop at our enemies, it extends towards any group that the cabinet or CCS + the RA feel is "hostile" to The South Pacific. "Hostile" can mean ... anything. By the very fact that the proposal allows us to declare a group "hostile" without declaring war on them, suggests that hostility is a concept that is independent of formal enmity. That's an open door to emotive mob rule.

[Cormac]

I understand that, though disagreeing with you on it. I just wanted to clarify the war issue as potential common ground if the current proposal doesn't pass.