NationStates

OK, I wanted to submit and do the TG campaign on a weekend, but I was unable to do so this weekend. I'll aim to submit this upcoming Friday.

The repeal proposal has finally been submitted. You can find it here. Delegates, please approve!

Our concern is that the people behind this (connopolis et al') have not even replaced the 'medical blockades' act they repealed some time ago.

Our policy re' repeals us now this 1/ replacement legislation is ready BEFORE repeal is submitted 2/ each round of repeal-replace is complete before another repeal is submitted.

This fails in point 2.

GET 'MEDICAL BLOCKADES' SORTED! WITHDRAW THIS REPEAL AS PART OF THAT.

Opaloka wrote:Our concern is that the people behind this (connopolis et al') have not even replaced the 'medical blockades' act they repealed some time ago.

Our policy re' repeals us now this 1/ replacement legislation is ready BEFORE repeal is submitted 2/ each round of repeal-replace is complete before another repeal is submitted.

This fails in point 2.

GET 'MEDICAL BLOCKADES' SORTED! WITHDRAW THIS REPEAL AS PART OF THAT.

I have not been involved at all with the medical blockades repeal/replace. While Connopolis and I collaborated on the habeas corpus replacement proposal, this repeal is my doing alone, and I intend to submit the replacement once the repeal passes. I am responsible for this repeal, not Connopolis, but I am not responsible for any perceived undue delay with the medical blockades replacement, with which I am not involved.

This one got to quorum pretty quickly, about which I am pleased.

We are happy to see the repeal in the queue.

Against! AGAINST!! AGAINST!!!

How dare you attempt to repeal this noble resolution. I demand that a suitable replacement be prepared before we even discuss this further. Yargle Bargle! Blaarg!

Oh, what's that? There's a replacement drafted, debated, and ready to go? Oh...

APPROVED

Generally, you have our support.

CJ

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Oh, what's that? There's a replacement drafted, debated, and ready to go?

Is it actually ready to do because it seems it is still being debated. Can I have assurances from the author that is is ready and waiting to go otherwise we will be voting Nay.

Delegate Vinage wrote:

Cowardly Pacifists wrote:Oh, what's that? There's a replacement drafted, debated, and ready to go?

Is it actually ready to do because it seems it is still being debated. Can I have assurances from the author that is is ready and waiting to go otherwise we will be voting Nay.

I am ready to submit the replacement, and will do so very shortly after the repeal passes. While I will consider proposed changes to the replacement until that time (though I will not consider weakening the anti-double-jeopardy protection), I will not delay the replacement because of any controversy it generates.

Quelesh wrote:

Delegate Vinage wrote:
Is it actually ready to do because it seems it is still being debated. Can I have assurances from the author that is is ready and waiting to go otherwise we will be voting Nay.

I am ready to submit the replacement, and will do so very shortly after the repeal passes. While I will consider proposed changes to the replacement until that time (though I will not consider weakening the anti-double-jeopardy protection), I will not delay the replacement because of any controversy it generates.

So I can reassure my electorate that we WILL be seeing the proposal submitted almost instantly if this passes? Our worry is that we will see something similar to the Medical Blockade Replacement which is yet to be submitted after being previously reassured such would happen.

Delegate Vinage wrote:

Quelesh wrote:I am ready to submit the replacement, and will do so very shortly after the repeal passes. While I will consider proposed changes to the replacement until that time (though I will not consider weakening the anti-double-jeopardy protection), I will not delay the replacement because of any controversy it generates.

So I can reassure my electorate that we WILL be seeing the proposal submitted almost instantly if this passes? Our worry is that we will see something similar to the Medical Blockade Replacement which is yet to be submitted after being previously reassured such would happen.

Yes, you can make that reassurance. I would say "within a day" rather than "almost instantly," as I can't guarantee that I'll be in the chamber at the moment the repeal passes (OOC: I can't guarantee I'll be on at the moment of the update), but yes. I haven't been involved with the medical blockade repeal/replace, but the whole point of this repeal is to replace GAR67 with a better resolution.

Ambassador Finn Mac Lochlainn takes the podium. "The Kingdom supports this repeal. We believe that the replacement proposal offered by the ambassador from Quelesh will close serious loopholes in the original resolution while strengthening habeas corpus. We urge other member nations to offer their support and to vote for this repeal when it's at vote."

I had chosen to abstain from approval, but seeing as it has reached quorum, I'm going to be brutally honest with the parts of this repeal.

Quelesh wrote:

TERRIBLY VEXED that the aforementioned resolution explicitly allows double jeopardy, the practice of trying an individual more than once for the same offense;

FURTHER VEXED that the aforementioned resolution imposes minimal obstacles to the unfettered use of double jeopardy, merely requiring the approval of a person who is "duly authorised by the legal system" to grant a "full legal authorisation for a retrial," essentially allowing for indefinite retrials, continuing to detain the individual all the while, until the court hands down a verdict favorable to the state;

I personally have no qualms with double jeopardy, so much so that I actually think preventing double jeopardy can be seen as a trapdoor for people to commit crimes and get away with it in the eyes of the common people. This is my big negative with the repeal.

Quelesh wrote:

DISTURBED that the aforementioned resolution allows the arbitrary detention, with no suspicion of wrongdoing, of an individual for up to twenty-four hours in any week, with minimal restrictions and with nothing to prevent repeated arbitrary detention for twenty four hours during every week indefinitely as a form of harassment or extra-legal punishment;

I won't doubt that one. There needs to be reason behind their detention.

Quelesh wrote:

STUNNED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after an acquittal;

Is this even within the confines of the original resolution's intention?

Quelesh wrote:

FLABBERGASTED that the aforementioned resolution does absolutely nothing to prohibit the continued detention, possibly indefinitely, of an individual after his or her criminal sentence has been completed;

As above.

Quelesh wrote:

NOTING WITH CONSTERNATION that the aforementioned resolution does not actually require member states to allow detained individuals to challenge their detention, much less set any standards for such challenges;

Given that that is the opposing intention of habeas corpus (OOC: according to my Wiki-research), that does need to be explicated. This is the main thing I have in favour of the repeal.

Since there is evidence in both directions of the debates raised in the repeal, I have to formally abstain from the voting. Feel free to debate my position; I shall respond with civility.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Delegate Vinage wrote:So I can reassure my electorate that we WILL be seeing the proposal submitted almost instantly if this passes? Our worry is that we will see something similar to the Medical Blockade Replacement which is yet to be submitted after being previously reassured such would happen.

The Medical Blockade replacement was delayed by its author's decision to submit a legality query to the Secretariat, a move which is to be commended rather than reproved. Lasting proposals take time to craft.
-- Dicey Reilly, Wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Ardchoilleans wrote:The Medical Blockade replacement was delayed by its author's decision to submit a legality query to the Secretariat, a move which is to be commended rather than reproved. Lasting proposals take time to craft.

"I don't disagree," said Ambassador Mac Lochlainn, "but in the case of issues so important as habeas corpus, a replacement proposal should be ready to submit before the repeal proposal is ever submitted.

"Unfortunately, ambassadors, a replacement proposal is not ready to submit. Because the Queleshi ambassador refuses to strip the double jeopardy language from her replacement proposal it looks unlikely to pass, and in any event His Excellency Lord Raekevik has found a legal problem. In light of this, the Kingdom is opposing this repeal proposal until such a time as a viable replacement draft is introduced and encourages other ambassadors to do the same. Hopefully a viable replacement draft will emerge before the repeal proposal comes up for a vote.

We generally support the repeal of what was a badly worded resolution. Our largest issue is with the definition of "lawful detention" which we hope to see in the replacement draft.

How can you say that GA 67 allows for double jeopardy? This is taken DIRECTLY from GA 67:

"7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial."

This prevents double jeopardy. I don't understand your intentions of repealing this so AGAINST

Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:How can you say that GA 67 allows for double jeopardy? This is taken DIRECTLY from GA 67:

"7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial."

This prevents double jeopardy. I don't understand your intentions of repealing this so AGAINST

It may help to read the section you quoted, you would realise you've just posted a line that allows double jeopardy, with further details being given in the clause after.

Edit: We still stand opposed to the removal of double jeopardy....but it would help if the ambassadors were to read the resolution, especially sections they intend to quote.

Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:How can you say that GA 67 allows for double jeopardy? This is taken DIRECTLY from GA 67:

"7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial."

This prevents double jeopardy. I don't understand your intentions of repealing this so AGAINST

Notice the last part of that: without full legal authorisation for a retrial. That is, the legal system may authorise double jeopardy.

Who does the authorization?

Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:Who does the authorization?

I direct you again to the text, it holds the answers you seek:

Habeas Corpus wrote:8) Full legal authorisation for a retrial can only be issued by person or persons who would be permitted to direct the consequent trial, and who are duly authorised by the legal system to issue such authorisation.

There are numerous reasons i'm against it. Namely - where's the replacement? The "replacement" has not been proposed. Until there is a replacement I will be inclined to vote Nay on this repeal.

Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:There are numerous reasons i'm against it. Namely - where's the replacement? The "replacement" has not been proposed. Until there is a replacement I will be inclined to vote Nay on this repeal.

The replacement cannot be proposed until the existing one is repealed.

Linux and the X wrote:

Kingdom of Aquanesha wrote:How can you say that GA 67 allows for double jeopardy? This is taken DIRECTLY from GA 67:

"7) That a person may not be charged with an offence of which they have been acquited by a court of law without full legal authorisation for a retrial."

This prevents double jeopardy. I don't understand your intentions of repealing this so AGAINST

Notice the last part of that: without full legal authorisation for a retrial. That is, the legal system may authorise double jeopardy.

And conversely the legal system can not authorize double jeopardy. Gee, it looks to me like those nations that don't want to allow double jeopardy in their nations, don't have to have it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative