[PASSED] Quick!Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act"

[Philimbesi]

This is missing where Philimbesi's official opinion on the matter is for habeas corpus to "stay dead."

- Dr. B. Castro

As a concept of government absolutely not, as a INTERNATIONAL law, yes please.

~Nigel S Youlkin

[Damanucus]

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

SPECIFIES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution. Therefore, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited, such that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days in the absence of criminal suspicion. As a result:

1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective. This 6 hour limit prevents WA member nations from providing effective treatment to these individuals.
2. An individual cannot be “medical(ly) quarantine(d)” for more than 6 hours. This negates the quarantining efforts as, even with appropriate treatment, individuals will typically remain contagious after such a short period of time.

This section of the repeal was the subject of a dispute earlier in the debate, and you can read the transcripts for a repetitive argument about it. However, to be somewhat brief:

This claim is a severe misrepresentation and misinterpretation of what GAR190 does. GAR190 just plain does not do what this section of the repeal claims it does.

The CLARIFIES section of GAR190 says that GAR190 does not prohibit involuntary psychiatric commitment, necessary medical quarantines, etc. To understand the repeal author's argument here, and my rebuttal to it, I'll put forward a scenario. Let's say that a member state locks someone up for the purpose of involuntary psychiatric commitment. Now let's move forward six hours in time. The member state has now kept this person locked up, as part of an involuntary psychiatric commitment, for six hours. The repeal's argument is that clause 1 of GAR190 requires the member state to release her at this time, and prohibits the member state from locking her up again as part of an involuntary psychiatric commitment for the next 162 hours (the remainder of the seven-day period).

This claim is blatantly impossible. In order for involuntary psychiatric commitment to be "limited" to six hours out of every 168-hour period, then it must be, by logical extention, prohibited during the remaining 162 hours. It is impossible for clause 1 of GAR190 to "limit" the involuntary psychiatric commitment of the person in the scenario above to the first six hours of the seven-day period without simultaneously prohibiting her involuntary psychiatric commitment for the next 162 hours. However, this is impossible, because nothing in GAR190 can be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment, during those 162 hours or during any other time.

To sum, if clause 1 of GAR190 "limits" involuntary psychiatric commitment to six hours out of every seven-day period, then it necessarily, by logical extension, prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment during the remaining 162 hours of the seven-day period, and since nothing in GAR190 can be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment, then clause 1 of GAR190 does not limit involuntary psychiatric commitment to six hours out of every seven-day period. The same is true of necessary medical quarantines, etc.

I can't believe we have to keep debating this, but now that you've brought it up here as well, I'm going to be straight-up with you: if there is a misinterpretation, as you claim, then you caused it by writing the statement as you did. Those are not prohibited, yes, as in, they are still allowed to occur, but they are still subject to the clauses above it, as no explicit exceptions were given in the resolution. And we kept telling you that—hell, I even provided you with a way to explicitly write them in:

Member states shall not detain any individual, without suspecting that individual of a criminal offense, for more than two hours in any seven-day period, with the exception of the following:

• Voluntary protective custody, in which case detention may be as long as is needed to ensure the individual's personal protection;
• Commitment for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, in which case detention will be only as long as needed for the evaluation or treatment

and explained why:

Now, you ask me once upon a time why my formatting is superior to yours. It's simple: it's unambiguous. Yours is vague, so much so that all of us opponents think it's as superfluous as, well, an extra wheel on a car. There are no extra conditions regarding these points; they just exist, seemingly without context.

And you still failed to comprehend that! That CLARIFIES section is little more than a middle finger to those who opposed the act, and you knew it!

The still irate

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Quelesh]

However, due to shortcomings within the proposal's own text, even "[v]oluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody" is limited to the same 6 hours within 7 days.

Please forgive me for responding only to this one point, but, with regard to the rest of your arguments, I feel there is little need in rehashing the same arguments I have already made over again. On this issue, though, I cannot be silent.

What you said above is not true. It is outright false. GAR190 does not do this. For reasons which I have already thoroughly explained, GAR190 does not prohibit voluntary protective custody for 162 hours out of every 168-hour period. It cannot, because it says it cannot.

Well that's certainly given the game away! Unless we all vote for motions put by Lord knootos or Lord mousebumples or whoever else is is in this self appointed clique, legislation will be subject to endless repeal & woe betide any delegate outside the gang that should dare to advance legislation.

Lets roll up the WA and replace it with a tribunial of lord knootos, lord mousebumples & lord unibot. The 'thinkpol' can be outsourced to the UDL.

On the other hand we could just smash this corruption!

Lord Raekevik raised an eyebrow. "Knootoss, Mousebumples and Unibot? Is Your Excellency mad? They would never agree on anything! Anyway, the comment was made about 'flawed Quelesh proposals', in the event of a perfect Quelesian proposal, we should of course vote in favour. Perhaps Quelesh-bashing Representatives should remember that proposals are the primary target of criticism."

Well, Knootoss and Mousebumples tend to be in the same NatSov camp, but Unibot is unlikely to agree with either of them.

Very nice, very blustery, and very off the point. Perhaps the ambassador took my 'our' to mean them, instead of the collective WA 'our'. My mistake, I should have been clearer.

The point is not that Habeas Corpus is wrong, it's that coming up with an acceptable international version that fits all or nearly all of the ideologies and legal system of all the nations in this body is near impossible. There really are some issues out there that can't be handled in an efficient manor at an international level.

We have had two versions of Habeas Corpus and I believe that each was repealed with a larger vote than that which passed it. That's no indication that this is a issue of which the details are best handled at the national level?

The problem is that people can't or wont' focus on just Habeas Corpus, they keep throwing other stuff into their proposals. That's why I support the Sanctarian's replacement draft because it focuses on just Habeas Corpus without including all the other claptrap that everyone else puts into their proposals.

I could support that proposal myself only if its blocker clause regarding time limits is removed.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Zaklen]

Why? So that you can make a resolution later including arbitrary time limits that you pulled out of an elephant's butt?

[Glen-Rhodes]

As a concept of government absolutely not, as a INTERNATIONAL law, yes please.

I'm failing to see the distinction, here. Are you arguing that habeas corpus ought to be available to all persons, while simultaneously preferring a policy that explicitly supports those states that deny the writ to their inhabitants?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Damanucus]

However, due to shortcomings within the proposal's own text, even "[v]oluntary protective custody, with the fully informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in custody" is limited to the same 6 hours within 7 days.

Please forgive me for responding only to this one point, but, with regard to the rest of your arguments, I feel there is little need in rehashing the same arguments I have already made over again. On this issue, though, I cannot be silent.

What you said above is not true. It is outright false. GAR190 does not do this. For reasons which I have already thoroughly explained, GAR190 does not prohibit voluntary protective custody for 162 hours out of every 168-hour period. It cannot, because it says it cannot.

[throws a copy of her own Habeas Corpus Act towards Alexandria] Then show us where it says this.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[The Palentine]

As a concept of government absolutely not, as a INTERNATIONAL law, yes please.

I'm failing to see the distinction, here. Are you arguing that habeas corpus ought to be available to all persons, while simultaneously preferring a policy that explicitly supports those states that deny the writ to their inhabitants?

- Dr. B. Castro

Well Spanky, I understand you're from Dharma so for your benefit I'll speak slowly. Habeas Corpus is a wonderful concept for goverments to have. However it is not the Festering Snakepit's place to MAKE every government to follow it, especially a one size fits all resolution that fails to take into account that some cultures and religeous beliefs do not use this concept, or it is anathema to their beliefs. And if a nation here in the Festering Snakepit wants to be a dictatorship and not allow such freedom, too bad. My own government reserves the right to suspend Habeus Corpus during wartime or times of crisis(ie civil war), and if the do gooders here don't like it they can kiss my Empress' very nice posterier. Of course you're one of those who believes that the festering snakepit needs to regulate all aspectos of our governments nad our private citizens lives, so this explanation probally didn't do bopkiss, but at least I got to paraphrase Terry Funk from I like to Hurt People, so its not a total loss.
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Glen-Rhodes]

Ah, yes, just as I expected. Moral relativism; believing that no principle can ever be universal. Sorry, but that's not how human rights work.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Philimbesi]

I'm failing to see the distinction, here. Are you arguing that habeas corpus ought to be available to all persons, while simultaneously preferring a policy that explicitly supports those states that deny the writ to their inhabitants?

- Dr. B. Castro

No. If I were doing that I would be trying to pass a Ban Habeas Corpus Act. Which to the best of my knowledge I haven't tried to pass or for that matter write. I've got quite enough words in my mouth already Dr Castro, I don't require you to place more there.

I am saying that in my nation it works, and we are perfectly able to maintain it with or without this organizations help. I'm also saying that I have enough respect of the rest of the nations in the body that I don't assume they are abusing their citizens rights just because we haven't told them they can't.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No. If I were doing that I would be trying to pass a Ban Habeas Corpus Act. Which to the best of my knowledge I haven't tried to pass or for that matter write. I've got quite enough words in my mouth already Dr Castro, I don't require you to place more there.

A ban wouldn't be something a moral relativist would want.

I'm also saying that I have enough respect of the rest of the nations in the body that I don't assume they are abusing their citizens rights just because we haven't told them they can't.

Because human rights law is about getting states who already comply with human rights to comply.. harder?

It sounds very much like the Philimbesi delegation is confused. Perhaps they should take a moment to collect themselves.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Ainocra]

Perhaps doctor, you should accept the fact that not everyone shares your worldview.
The Star empire of Ainocra supports this repeal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Perhaps doctor, you should accept the fact that not everyone shares your worldview.

I am well aware that not every member state of the World Assembly agrees that they should not be able to arbitrarily imprison their people. Glen-Rhodes does not respect that position, and neither should an institution with a long-standing tradition of securing human rights for all persons.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Philimbesi]

It sounds very much like the Philimbesi delegation is confused. Perhaps they should take a moment to collect themselves.

We aren't confused at all. We simply disagree with the assumption that the lack of a international law must always equal the lack of a national law, or that when both are present the international version is the better version simply on it's pedigree as coming from this body.

[Glen-Rhodes]

We aren't confused at all. We simply disagree with the assumption that the lack of a international law must always equal the lack of a national law, or that when both are present the international version is the better version simply on it's pedigree as coming from this body.

... Again, you are suggesting that we leave all human rights up to national decision-makers? So that those who want to violate them can continue to do so? Just because there are member states out there that will uphold human rights regardless of whether or not international law mandates it of them?

I must reiterate my point on confusion...

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quelesh]

Habeas Corpus is a wonderful concept for goverments to have. However it is not the Festering Snakepit's place to MAKE every government to follow it

Actually, yes it is. The primary purpose of this Assembly is to protect individual sovereignty from infringement by member state governments. True sovereignty rests with each person individually, not with nation-states, and this Assembly exists to protect that sovereignty.

Some member states will infringe upon the human rights of their people if given the opportunity. We must deny them that opportunity, or we are complicit in the infringement upon their people's rights.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Mallorea and Riva]

Habeas Corpus is a wonderful concept for goverments to have. However it is not the Festering Snakepit's place to MAKE every government to follow it

Actually, yes it is. The primary purpose of this Assembly is to protect individual sovereignty from infringement by member state governments. True sovereignty rests with each person individually, not with nation-states, and this Assembly exists to protect that sovereignty.

Says you.

[Moronist Decisions]

True sovereignty rests with each person individually, not with nation-states, and this Assembly exists to protect that sovereignty.

There is a balance of national sovereignty and individual sovereignty that needs to be made. If everyone has complete individual sovereignty, we will end up being a bunch of anarchistic states. On the other hand, no individual sovereignty would smack of totalitarianism. Where that line lies may vary as a matter of opinion for different member states and that's the real question. For us, the two go hand in hand and while we do support mandating Habeas Corpus on an international scale, we do not believe that its implementation should be micromanaged by the World Assembly.

[Ainocra]

Actually, yes it is. The primary purpose of this Assembly is to protect individual sovereignty from infringement by member state governments. True sovereignty rests with each person individually, not with nation-states, and this Assembly exists to protect that sovereignty.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Really, I was under the impression the function of this body was to promote international peace and understanding.
The key word here is International, a single person may travel internationally but they are not in and of themselves international.
You cannot have a nation of one, or to paraphrase No man is an island.

Perhaps doctor, you should accept the fact that not everyone shares your worldview.

I am well aware that not every member state of the World Assembly agrees that they should not be able to arbitrarily imprison their people. Glen-Rhodes does not respect that position, and neither should an institution with a long-standing tradition of securing human rights for all persons.

- Dr. B. Castro

It would seem that the doctor does not respect any position save his own limited vision. While I might agree that arbitrary imprisonment might not be a good thing, common sense would dictate that laws dealing with such matters are best left at a local level. Frankly what might work in the Ainocran capitol of Fustercluck might not work in your little village by the seashore.

[Ossitania]

Oh wow, that's surprising. Quelesh thinks the Assembly's primary purpose is to promote his own radical libertarian individualist worldview. Shocker.

[Philimbesi]

I must reiterate my point on confusion...

As is often the case with you Dr Castro the problem is not my confusion, it's with your listening skills.

[Ainocra]

Oh wow, that's surprising. Quelesh thinks the Assembly's primary purpose is to promote his own radical libertarian individualist worldview. Shocker.

I must reiterate my point on confusion...

As is often the case with you Dr Castro the problem is not my confusion, it's with your listening skills.

Marshal Enta chuckles loudly. "Rarely have I seen such basic truths put so succinctly."
Reaching inside his coat he produces cigars and offers one to Nigel and another to Derek. "Gentlemen, my compliments."

[Dagguerro]

*Daniel watches the back and forth between the other ambassadors for a few minutes then gestured to an aide who passes him a paper bag*

Popcorn, anyone?

[Granem]

It seems pretty obvious that who ever wrote it in the first place wasnt thinking.
I mean, six hour quaurentine? REALLY?!?! That's probably not even enough time to make a diagnosis, let alone have any affect on the disease! I'm totally in support of a repeal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Oh wow, that's surprising. Quelesh thinks the Assembly's primary purpose is to promote his own radical libertarian individualist worldview. Shocker.

How is habeas corpus, at its core, a radical libertarian individualist worldview? I'm sorry, but you guys are just making things up now, to take pot-shots at people you don't like.

[Sanctaria]

Oh wow, that's surprising. Quelesh thinks the Assembly's primary purpose is to promote his own radical libertarian individualist worldview. Shocker.

How is habeas corpus, at its core, a radical libertarian individualist worldview? I'm sorry, but you guys are just making things up now, to take pot-shots at people you don't like.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to this.

Actually, yes it is. The primary purpose of this Assembly is to protect individual sovereignty from infringement by member state governments. True sovereignty rests with each person individually, not with nation-states, and this Assembly exists to protect that sovereignty.