The Women's one though.
That's not a real one.
Advertisement
by Bandwagon » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:03 am
by Ethel mermania » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:14 am
Laerod wrote:Risottia wrote:
Garcia is an American citizen; isn't he bound to observe American laws even when outside the US jurisdiction, at least in some way?
Also, since the FIFA HQ is in Zuerich, his contract with the FIFA is likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the Cantonal Court - let's say in the case of a civil lawsuit.
The question would then be whether his confidentiality agreement allows him to pass on information to parliamentarians or not. Probably not.
by Nazis in Space » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:40 am
by The Nihilistic view » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:42 am
[/quote]The Archregimancy wrote:I believe Garcia has a way of publishing his report without breaking relevant laws.
He could, hypothetically, provide a copy to a member of parliament in a Westminster-style democracy that has the legal concept of parliamentary privilege. This would encompass the UK, Australia, and Canada - though the case is of most direct interest to the first two.
That member of parliament could then release the contents of the report in the course of his or her normal legislative duties without fear of criminal prosecution.
I'd be grateful (seriously) if anyone could point out a potential flaw in this, other than the opprobrium FIFA would likely launch at the relevant MP.
For reference (lightly edited from Wikipedia):
Parliamentary privilege (also absolute privilege) is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system. A similar mechanism is known as parliamentary immunity.
In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act. It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament—for example, as a question to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets.
There is no immunity from arrest on criminal grounds.
Similar rights apply in other Westminster system countries such as Canada and Australia. In the United States, the Speech or Debate Clause in Article One of the United States Constitution provides for a similar privilege, and many state constitutions provide similar clauses for their state legislatures.
Parliamentary privilege is controversial because of its potential for abuse; a member can use privilege to make damaging allegations that would ordinarily be discouraged by defamation laws, without first determining whether those allegations have a strong foundation.
by Laerod » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:04 am
Toronina wrote:Could they be any more corrupt?
by Toronina » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:10 am
Laerod wrote:Toronina wrote:Could they be any more corrupt?
Imagine if they accepted bribes for what kids get to accompany the stars onto the field at the beginning and then proceeded to secretly auction off the kids to the highest bidder while telling their parents they were off at a sports camp. That the parents have to pay for.
by Ethel mermania » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:16 am
Laerod wrote:Toronina wrote:Could they be any more corrupt?
Imagine if they accepted bribes for what kids get to accompany the stars onto the field at the beginning and then proceeded to secretly auction off the kids to the highest bidder while telling their parents they were off at a sports camp. That the parents have to pay for.
by Laerod » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:18 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Laerod wrote:Imagine if they accepted bribes for what kids get to accompany the stars onto the field at the beginning and then proceeded to secretly auction off the kids to the highest bidder while telling their parents they were off at a sports camp. That the parents have to pay for.
Don't give them any ideas.
by The Archregimancy » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:41 am
The Nihilistic view wrote:
The obvious flaw being if it's illegal to release the report it's illegal to release the report, whether Garcia gives the report to 1, 10 1000 people, whether they are MPs or not or to the general public on a website.
by Estenia » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:45 am
by Bandwagon » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:47 am
by The Nihilistic view » Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:36 am
The Archregimancy wrote:The Nihilistic view wrote:
The obvious flaw being if it's illegal to release the report it's illegal to release the report, whether Garcia gives the report to 1, 10 1000 people, whether they are MPs or not or to the general public on a website.
Yes, that is the obvious flaw.
I suppose I was assuming an underlying scenario where the relevant MP acquires the report via a means that leaves Garcia's hands clean; but since the report's only been seen by four people (allegedly), I'm not sure how we get to that point.
So we can find a means whereby the contents can be revealed, but not necessarily a means to get the report to the person who does the revealing.
by The Archregimancy » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:01 pm
by Laerod » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:48 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:Now this is an interesting development:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... y-football
The president of the German Football League says that UEFA should leave FIFA if the Garcia report isn't published in full.
by Chestaan » Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:16 pm
Laerod wrote:Toronina wrote:Could they be any more corrupt?
Imagine if they accepted bribes for what kids get to accompany the stars onto the field at the beginning and then proceeded to secretly auction off the kids to the highest bidder while telling their parents they were off at a sports camp. That the parents have to pay for.
by New Rogernomics » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:23 pm
by The Nihilistic view » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:39 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:Now this is an interesting development:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... y-football
The president of the German Football League says that UEFA should leave FIFA if the Garcia report isn't published in full.
by FutureAmerica » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:43 pm
by Sebastianbourg » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:00 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Laerod wrote:Imagine if they accepted bribes for what kids get to accompany the stars onto the field at the beginning and then proceeded to secretly auction off the kids to the highest bidder while telling their parents they were off at a sports camp. That the parents have to pay for.
Don't give them any ideas.
by Commerce Heights » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:49 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:Now this is an interesting development:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... y-football
The president of the German Football League says that UEFA should leave FIFA if the Garcia report isn't published in full.
FutureAmerica wrote:All the FIFA executives are corrupt bride taking thieves. The Olympics committee is the same.
by Nazis in Space » Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:10 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Choson Minjujuui, Google [Bot], Hurdergaryp, Ifreann, Lycom, Ukraine-0, Umeria
Advertisement