Criminal Regions and Organisations Act

[Unibot]

I suspect it will pass and I have thus posed reference questions to the Supreme Court. Given rulings take time, I figured I would prepare them to start thinking about the legal questions before "Article 9" eventually  passes. 

 

http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/topic/...getnewpost

[Kris Kringle]

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
   
3. Membership of a designated Criminal Group does not constitute a criminal offence; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud
   
4. Regions at war with The South Pacific shall be automatically considered Criminal Groups; The Assembly may further designate Criminal Groups via a vote with a 60% majority in favor, should the Cabinet or CSS request such a designation
   
5. The following regions and organisations are deemed Criminal Groups within The South Pacific; The Greater German Reich, Gatesville
   

 

 

You have one clause saying requests for designation as criminal require both Cabinet and CSS recommendation, and another one saying it only takes one of them. Which one is it?

[Unibot]

I believe it's a disjunctive  because C.4 must be read as an inclusive disjunctive, whereas C.1 can be read as an informal conjunctive (which in effect acts as an inclusive disjunctive). A contradiction only arises if C.1 is meant to be a formal conjunctive and C.4, a formal disjunctive. 

 

Prima facie, is there a contradiction? Yes - and it's something that should have been talked about. A disjunctive scenario lacks the checks and balances of the conjunctive scenario. 

[Kris Kringle]

The fact that we are having this conversation is enough proof that this proposal is too vague when it comes to one of its fundamental parts. There is also the fact that we don't know what the standard is for requesting that a group be declared criminal. I can't vote in favour of a bill this vague.

[HEM]

I cannot support this proposal, it opens many dangerous pandora's boxes.

[Punk D]

I like the spirit of this bill, but some of the vague areas of the bill concern me. 

 

I think we have a very good draft, but I believe we've got more work to do.

[Belschaft]

I believe it's a disjunctive because C.4 must be read as an inclusive disjunctive, whereas C.1 can be read as an informal conjunctive (which in effect acts as an inclusive disjunctive). A contradiction only arises if C.1 is meant to be a formal conjunctive and C.4, a formal disjunctive.

Prima facie, is there a contradiction? Yes - and it's something that should have been talked about. A disjunctive scenario lacks the checks and balances of the conjunctive scenario.

I don't think there is any contradiction. C.1 states that the Cabinet and the CSS have the power to request a designation. C.4 details how the Cabinet or the CSS go about doing such.

[Unibot]

That's what I said.

[Belschaft]

I know, but I repeated/confirmed it devoid of the technical grammatical language. Not everyone will be entirely familiar with the formal rules of English grammar, and the distinction between a disjunctive and conjunctive.

 

Further, I don't think that a contradiction can be read into the language even prima facie. The use of or in C.1 would limit the the power to request a designation to only one of the CSS or Cabinet, which would render both the clause and the entire legislation nonsensical - and inoperative, unless I added another clause in saying which of them had that power. I believe my language to be not only grammatically correct, but the shortest and most elegant way of expressing the intent.

 

Finally, the conjunctive scenario was never intended or desired. Checks and balances are provided via the requirement of agreement between the Assembly and either the CSS or Cabinet; our principal security and foreign policy organs. I never sought to construct a 'triple lock' of Assembly, CSS and Cabinet. The combination of a responsible executive body acting as the nominating party and the legislature acting as the confirmatory party seems sufficient.

[Belschaft]

Considering the concerns of some of our citizens, I'm open to discussing proposed amendments to refine this legislation, assuming that they are not aimed to make the CROA functionally inoperable or undermine its objectives.

[Unibot]

 

Article 9: Consorting 

1. Membership in a region or organization with which The South Pacific is at war with, is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for immediate revocation of citizenship.
   
2. Membership with any such war-time enemy does not constitute a criminal offence; although, failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.
   

[Belschaft]

That limits the scope beyond what is desired and what the Assembly has expressed support for. It is quite possible for a region or organisation to be hostile to The South Pacific without a state of war existing, or the Assembly desiring to establish one. The procedure for declaring a group hostile under the CROA requires a vote of equivalent majority as a declaration of war - 60% - and as such your proposed amendment does nothing but force TSP to declare war where it may be more appropriate to merely criminalize a group.

 

I was looking instead for amendments that would improve checks, balances and protections. I believe Glen has suggested defining hostile, which I'm open to in principle assuming that it doesn't limit the scope to such a degree as to not be practical, and I think the simple addition of the word 'foreign' into Article 9 would deal with concerns that this could be used against domestic opposition.

[Unibot]

It seems to me that you want to have this function so that you can name and blame a group as a criminal group, without the political consequences of going to war. It loosely allows us to gut whole swathes of our citizenry, so long as 60% of the electorate is angry enough at some boogeyman. 

[Belschaft]

Hardly; it allows us to prohibit dual membership between TSP and other regions and organistions as deemed appropriate.

 

The CROA is incapable of gutting our citizenry, unless vast swathes of it possess loyalties they hold higher than TSP and choose to remain part of that group instead should it be deemed hostile. What the CROA does is force people to choose one or the other where they are contradictory.

 

That there may be groups who are hostile, but whom we do not wish to declare war on, is self explanatory.

[Sandaoguo]

What kind of changes are you ready to accept? I've already told you privately my problems with this law, and you have access to my proposed Executive Policy on which groups are appropriate for designation. You didn't seem to be open to those changes, arguing that the maturity of the Assembly is enough of a limiting principle, so I'm not sure you're really looking for any.

 

I think a better way to start a discussion on amendments would be telling us what you think a hostile group is. How would you propose adding limits, checks, and balancing?

 

Regarding adding "foreign," I think we need to keep in mind TSP's negative history when it comes to things like this. How would "foreign" help? Whenever somebody wants to persecute somebody else for their membership in different organizations, they always make sure to call it a "foreign" organization, to create the sense that the person they're persecuting has other loyalties.

[Belschaft]

Your current proposed executive policy is an improvement on the old one but is still not only redundant - as it amounts to little more than saying 'The cabinet shouldn't abuse this law', which will be ignored by any cabinet inclined to do such - but, I believe, illegal under Article 5.1.6 of the Charter. I've argued before that I think the dictionary definition of hostile, combined with prudent judgment on the part of the executive and legislature, suffices for purposes, but you have expressed a desire for a definition. I'm open to it, if you have language you would like to suggest.

 

In regards to adding foreign, that is a specific response to the suggestion that Article 9 could be used to target domestic political groups such as political parties. I don't think that is probable, but seeing no downsides to adding the word foreign in its something I support as it will allay that fear and close the possibility.

 

I'm not the one who doesn't like the law; you oppose it, now I'm asking for your help in resolving the issues you are concerned with and improving it. Why not be constructive, rather than trying to make inoperative something with clear majority support?

[Unibot]

I think the clear electoral support was for banning people from GGR and Gatesville -- I don't think a lot of the voting public even supported the idea of allowing the cabinet's mechanism for requesting other non-enemies to be called "criminal groups" and banned from membership.

 

Overall, using the "electoral support" argument is a smokescreen. 

[tsunamy]

I think the clear electoral support was for banning people from GGR and Gatesville -- I don't think a lot of the voting public even supported the idea of allowing the cabinet's mechanism for requesting other non-enemies to be called "criminal groups" and banned from membership.

 

Overall, using the "electoral support" argument is a smokescreen. 

 

Nope. I voted so we can take care of members of groups that are hostile or otherwise looking to subvert the region.

 

The problem with discussing the electorate as an abstract concept is that it can actually speak for itself. Moreover, if people didn't like the law they wouldn't have voted for it. There's no "electoral smokescreen."

 

Let's be practical and not philosophical.

[Sandaoguo]

I can't get anywhere with you, Belschaft, until I understand your intentions. I need to know what criteria you're looking for in a suspect group. You dismissed outright the criteria I've suggested, without actually offering up your own. The "dictionary definition" of hostile isn't good enough.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

[Belschaft]

Your original definition, which I opposed, attempted to limit it to only direct military threat, ignoring espionage, infiltration and subversion, propaganda, blackmail, etc etc. The very reason I wanted to avoid a definition is that hostility is hard to define, and comes in many forms.

[tsunamy]

I can't get anywhere with you, Belschaft, until I understand your intentions. I need to know what criteria you're looking for in a suspect group. You dismissed outright the criteria I've suggested, without actually offering up your own. The "dictionary definition" of hostile isn't good enough. Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

 

Alright, not to put my nose where it doesn't belong, but is the definition of a "hostile group" a group that wants to do harm to the region? i.e. a group that might have people in this region advocating for stances that are either (1) not in the region's best interests or (2) purposefully distorted to use make the region believe something false about an enemy?

 

Toward Bels, it seems to me like there more insidious hostile actions than a military threat, no?

[Unibot]

a group that might have people in this region advocating for stances that are either (1) not in the region's best interests

 

Isn't that.. completely subjective?

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">a group that might have people in this region advocating for stances that are either (1) not in the region's best interests

 

Isn't that.. completely subjective?

 


</blockquote>
 

Nothing is objective. Even the word "hostility" isn't objective.

[Belschaft]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="116780" data-time="1392329132">

I can't get anywhere with you, Belschaft, until I understand your intentions. I need to know what criteria you're looking for in a suspect group. You dismissed outright the criteria I've suggested, without actually offering up your own. The "dictionary definition" of hostile isn't good enough. Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

Alright, not to put my nose where it doesn't belong, but is the definition of a "hostile group" a group that wants to do harm to the region? i.e. a group that might have people in this region advocating for stances that are either (1) not in the region's best interests or (2) purposefully distorted to use make the region believe something false about an enemy?


Toward Bels, it seems to me like there more insidious hostile actions than a military threat, no?
</blockquote>
There are many such possible threats, some more insidious. I invite people to consider the behavior of the Empire in Osiris, or the NPO in Lazarus. Both are examples where individuals possessing citizenship and claiming loyalty had conflicting external loyalties, and acted in favor of them. The Empire couped Osiris, and threatened to do so many other times. NPO - specifically Senator Feux, assisted by Senator AMOM and enabled by other NPO members in Lazarus - purged the region of all opposition, leading to them receiving 'unanimous' consent for the cultural and ideological conversion of the region and subsequent consolidation of a dictatorship by NPO Senator Milograd.


In both regions democracy was subverted and destroyed by citizens loyal to a foreign group, without a single overt hostile act. Osiris was freed only by military coup, and Lazarus drifts towards eternal tutelage.


So yes, my primary concern is not necessarily a direct military threat.

[Punk D]

Ok, I took a stab at reworking the Article.

 

I denied the right of appeal of citizen applicants who are members of Criminal Groups. I added a probationary period for current citizens who are a part of a Criminal Group giving them time to decide to remain in the Criminal Group or to renounce their members. I also added some procedures around verifying that indeed a citizen is a member of a Criminal Group. I also raised the bar from 60% to 70% majority. I think I'd probably be ok with 2/3rds majority, but I'd like something more than 60%.

 

 

Article 9: Criminal Regions and Organisations


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">1.    
A Criminal Group is defined as a regional government or organization that has declared war on The South Pacific, seeks to impede the goals of The South Pacific, or in any way infringes upon the sovereignty of The South Pacific and/or her allies through but not limited to espionage, blackmail, subterfuge, infiltration, etc.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">2.    
The Cabinet and/or CSS shall request the Assembly designate regions and organisations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Criminal Groups.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">3.    
Regions at war with The South Pacific shall be automatically considered Criminal Groups. Once the war has ended the Criminal Group designation shall be automatically removed.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">4.    
The Assembly shall designate Criminal Groups not at war with The South Pacific via a vote needing a 70% majority upon receipt of the Cabinet or CSS request.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">5.    
The South Pacific prohibits citizens from serving as members of designated Criminal Groups.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">6.    
Citizen applicants will be asked to verify that they are not members of a designated Criminal Group as part of the citizen application review.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">7.    
If applicants disclose membership to a designated Criminal Group(s), the application will be denied. Application rejections based upon membership within a Criminal Group may not be appealed.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">8.    
When a new Criminal Group is designated, the Speaker of the Assembly will be charged with validating that each current citizen is not a member of a designated Criminal Group;


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">9.    
At the onset of this legislation, the Speaker of the Assembly will be charged with validating that each current citizen is not a member of a designated Criminal Group cited at the end of this Article.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">10.  
If there is evidence to support that a current citizen is a member of a designated Criminal Group then :


<p style="margin-left:1in;">1.    
In order for “evidence” to be considered factual, the Speaker must submit all corroborating documents to the Supreme Court for verification.


<p style="margin-left:1in;">2.    
The Supreme Court will have 96 hours to review and render a decision as to the veracity of the evidence.


<p style="margin-left:1in;">3.    
The citizen will have (7) seven days to renounce membership within the designated Criminal Group once the Supreme Court has verified the evidence.


<p style="margin-left:1in;">4.    
The citizen must produce supporting documentation that they have renounced membership from the designated Criminal Group.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">11.  
If the citizen does not renounce membership within the designated Criminal Group within the (7) days, the citizen will have their citizenship revoked.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">12.  
Nothing in this Article exempts citizens from facing criminal charges related to withholding their membership within a Criminal Group to the Speaker’s office.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;">13.  
The following regions and organisations are deemed Criminal Groups within The South Pacific; The Greater German Reich, Gatesville.