NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Convict Appellate Rights

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Wed May 30, 2012 5:32 pm

Knootoss wrote:We are dubious about this proposal on account of Quelesh' support and apparent input on it.


Apparent input? There was a single word change suggested by the Quelesian delegation that didn't actually change the provisions of the proposal. Additionally, not everything that Quelesh approves of is wrong and it is deeply insulting that the Knootian delegation has apparently dismissed our proposal out of hand merely because of Quelesh's support. The ambassador from Knootoss has disappointed us.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Thu May 31, 2012 5:27 am

Knootoss wrote:We are dubious about this proposal on account of Quelesh' support and apparent input on it.


I take issue with this stance in this instance. The input was minor at best.

Dr. Johannes Frick
Representative to the WA
Last edited by Moronist Decisions on Thu May 31, 2012 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Wu Wei Shan
Envoy
 
Posts: 265
Founded: Oct 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Wu Wei Shan » Thu May 31, 2012 7:21 am

This is a very good proposal. Approved.
The Libertarian Socialist Tao of Wu Wei Shan: The greatest Taoist haven on NationStates. Who wouldn't want to live here?

Political Compass: Hard Left Libertarian

User avatar
Bob10101010
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Feb 17, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Bob10101010 » Thu May 31, 2012 7:32 am

Seems to be a very well-written resolution that was constructed with community suggestions worked in

I intend to support it

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Thu May 31, 2012 1:34 pm

Looks like we're a third of the way there! Keep dem endos a-comin'!
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:04 am

Ossitania wrote:
Knootoss wrote:We are dubious about this proposal on account of Quelesh' support and apparent input on it.


Apparent input? There was a single word change suggested by the Quelesian delegation that didn't actually change the provisions of the proposal. Additionally, not everything that Quelesh approves of is wrong and it is deeply insulting that the Knootian delegation has apparently dismissed our proposal out of hand merely because of Quelesh's support. The ambassador from Knootoss has disappointed us.


Frankly, I'm sick of Quelesh' pushing for the unification of national legal systems. While we might consider supporting such resolutions on their merits, the possibility that Ossitania is being used as a front man by Quelesh is enough for us to withhold support. It's high time for the World Assembly to shut up about the rights of criminals for five minutes so that we can talk about other things. Who knows how much input Quelesh, which has been loving all over this proposal, had behind the scenes.
Last edited by Knootoss on Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:06 am, edited 3 times in total.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:08 am

Knootoss wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
Apparent input? There was a single word change suggested by the Quelesian delegation that didn't actually change the provisions of the proposal. Additionally, not everything that Quelesh approves of is wrong and it is deeply insulting that the Knootian delegation has apparently dismissed our proposal out of hand merely because of Quelesh's support. The ambassador from Knootoss has disappointed us.


Frankly, I'm sick of Quelesh' pushing for the unification of national legal systems. While we might consider supporting such resolutions on their merits, the possibility that Ossitania is being used as a front man by Quelesh is enough for us to withhold support. It's high time for the World Assembly to shut up about the rights of criminals for five minutes so that we can talk about other things. Who knows how much input Quelesh, which has been loving all over this proposal, had behind the scenes.


Right, so despite the fact that we've argued vigorously against Quelesh's resolutions, despite the fact that we have a co-authorship credit on the resolution that blocks Quelesh's, despite the fact that we originally submitted an earlier draft of this proposal in direct competition with Quelesh's second version of Double Jeopardy Prohibition, despite the fact that there were other far more prominent voices in the drafting of this resolution (not least of all Moronist Decisions, with whom I was, at one point, presenting a combined resolution), as opposed to Quelesh, who suggested a single word change from "criminals" to "convicts", despite the fact that I can, upon request, provide evidence that I have been planning a resolution on appellate rights since long before Quelesh started this whole thing, despite the fact that I left Dharma in protest against Quelesh's behaviour, despite the fact that I'm reasonably sure Quelesh and I haven't spoken outside this chamber since I left and despite the fact that a large number of nations who aren't Quelesh support this resolution, we are apparently a frontman for Quelesh.

Incidentally, we were working on other matters than criminal justice legislation within the timeframe of the entire debacle over habeas corpus and double jeopardy.

The ambassador from Knootoss has crossed the line from merely being disappointing to being insulting.
Last edited by Ossitania on Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Zemnaya Svoboda
Diplomat
 
Posts: 823
Founded: Jan 06, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Zemnaya Svoboda » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:35 am

"This proposal is clear, simple, and does not impose any arbitrary time limits. To oppose it due to the support it has received from a different author is alike to opposing a centre-left candidate because they have the support of the far-left against the centre-right candidate. The knootossian argument fails to persuade my government. My government has chosen to approve of this proposal, though if we are asked by our constituents in The North Pacific to remove our approval we will do so."

User avatar
Malicuria
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: May 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Malicuria welcomes this proposal

Postby Malicuria » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:48 am

The delegation from The Republic of Malicuria welcomes this proposal. We see it further strengthening due process of law and civil liberties, in which we are keen on promoting. The Republic of Malicuria encourages other member nations to approve and adopt this piece of legislation.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:56 pm

With just a day and an hour to go, we're still 21 approvals short and would like a few more on top of that to keep us in the queue for certain. Any help from delegates who have yet to approve is appreciated!
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:47 am

Aaaaand we're at quorum. I'd like to offer my sincere gratitude to all the delegates who have aided our nation in bringing this legislation to quorum and to all the other delegations here in the World Assembly who have aided us in the drafting process, especially our friends from Moronist Decisions.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:07 pm

Proposal 1338406173 "Convict Appellate Rights", having received the requisite approval by 6% of the current WA delegacy, has reached quorum.

Question to be put at approximately 05:00 GMT on Wednesday 6 June 2012, unless approvals are withdrawn or unless the Chair is informed of other situations that would render this timeframe void.

I now move that the Clerk to the House schedule this proposal for coming to the floor and its requisite vote time of four days, spanning from Wednesday 6 June until Sunday 10 June 2012.

Order, order, I do cede the floor to the next Honourable Delegate wishing to speak on this matter. There shall be no other matters entertained by the Chair unless an application to the chair is made beforehand

Dr Klause Uliyan
Deputy Speaker
On behalf of Mr Speaker, the Right Honourable Lord Michael Evif in his absence

OOC: Like Goob, I like my parliamentary procedure. I am RP'ing the role of Speaker in the absence of Goob
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7368
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:33 pm

Merfurian wrote:Proposal 1338406173 "Convict Appellate Rights", having received the requisite approval by 6% of the current WA delegacy, has reached quorum.

Question to be put at approximately 05:00 GMT on Wednesday 6 June 2012, unless approvals are withdrawn or unless the Chair is informed of other situations that would render this timeframe void.

I now move that the Clerk to the House schedule this proposal for coming to the floor and its requisite vote time of four days, spanning from Wednesday 6 June until Sunday 10 June 2012.

Order, order, I do cede the floor to the next Honourable Delegate wishing to speak on this matter. There shall be no other matters entertained by the Chair unless an application to the chair is made beforehand

Dr Klause Uliyan
Deputy Speaker
On behalf of Mr Speaker, the Right Honourable Lord Michael Evif in his absence

OOC: Like Goob, I like my parliamentary procedure. I am RP'ing the role of Speaker in the absence of Goob

You're not a member of the Secretariat. Why are you occupying the chair?
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:44 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Merfurian wrote:Proposal 1338406173 "Convict Appellate Rights", having received the requisite approval by 6% of the current WA delegacy, has reached quorum.

Question to be put at approximately 05:00 GMT on Wednesday 6 June 2012, unless approvals are withdrawn or unless the Chair is informed of other situations that would render this timeframe void.

I now move that the Clerk to the House schedule this proposal for coming to the floor and its requisite vote time of four days, spanning from Wednesday 6 June until Sunday 10 June 2012.

Order, order, I do cede the floor to the next Honourable Delegate wishing to speak on this matter. There shall be no other matters entertained by the Chair unless an application to the chair is made beforehand

Dr Klause Uliyan
Deputy Speaker
On behalf of Mr Speaker, the Right Honourable Lord Michael Evif in his absence

OOC: Like Goob, I like my parliamentary procedure. I am RP'ing the role of Speaker in the absence of Goob

You're not a member of the Secretariat. Why are you occupying the chair?


He's not even a member of the World Assembly, never mind the Secratariat.

OOC: He roleplays an observer nation that adopts WA law voluntarily and can decide not to follow WA law if it likes. In other words, he likes to have his cake and eat it too.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:36 am

Sanctaria wrote:
Merfurian wrote:Proposal 1338406173 "Convict Appellate Rights", having received the requisite approval by 6% of the current WA delegacy, has reached quorum.

Question to be put at approximately 05:00 GMT on Wednesday 6 June 2012, unless approvals are withdrawn or unless the Chair is informed of other situations that would render this timeframe void.

I now move that the Clerk to the House schedule this proposal for coming to the floor and its requisite vote time of four days, spanning from Wednesday 6 June until Sunday 10 June 2012.

Order, order, I do cede the floor to the next Honourable Delegate wishing to speak on this matter. There shall be no other matters entertained by the Chair unless an application to the chair is made beforehand

Dr Klause Uliyan
Deputy Speaker
On behalf of Mr Speaker, the Right Honourable Lord Michael Evif in his absence

OOC: Like Goob, I like my parliamentary procedure. I am RP'ing the role of Speaker in the absence of Goob

You're not a member of the Secretariat. Why are you occupying the chair?


There's a thing called roleplay. I can roleplay in any way I want.
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:38 am

Ossitania wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:You're not a member of the Secretariat. Why are you occupying the chair?


He's not even a member of the World Assembly, never mind the Secratariat.

OOC: He roleplays an observer nation that adopts WA law voluntarily and can decide not to follow WA law if it likes. In other words, he likes to have his cake and eat it too.


Why shouldn't I be allowed to apply WA law as I choose? Observer nations have that right. Why does it give you umbrage?
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7368
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:57 am

Merfurian wrote:
Ossitania wrote:
He's not even a member of the World Assembly, never mind the Secratariat.

OOC: He roleplays an observer nation that adopts WA law voluntarily and can decide not to follow WA law if it likes. In other words, he likes to have his cake and eat it too.


Why shouldn't I be allowed to apply WA law as I choose? Observer nations have that right. Why does it give you umbrage?

Well it annoys those of us who are dedicated to the World Assembly and apply laws regardless of whether or not we agree to it. We're not half hearted about it.

In that vein, it must be noted you're very involved in debates and discussions and often mislead delegates with your declarations of support, or otherwise, when in fact your say is rather meaningless because you do not, and have no, vote. This is not me saying you cannot participate in debates, but if you're going to pretend you're the "deputy speaker", would you not consider the fact that maybe the deputy speaker of the General Assembly would actually be a member of that body?

Finally, while I'm aware this is dragging the topic awfully off-topic, you are continuously, and have been warned by the Secretariat of this, haranguing and abusing an Ambassador to this Assembly; an Ambassador to this Assembly from a member nation of this Assembly, one who has, until recently, been in good stead.

Basically, to sum up, we don't have a problem with "observer nations". That being said, if you're going to be an observer nation, then act like an observer nation.



On topic, however, I have approved this proposal and look forward to its vote.
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7368
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:58 am

Merfurian wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:You're not a member of the Secretariat. Why are you occupying the chair?


There's a thing called roleplay. I can roleplay in any way I want.

I'm pretty sure the thing called "impersonating the Secretariat" is a warn-able offence. Consider it's the Secretariat that chair the debates...
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Merfurian
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Jan 25, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Merfurian » Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:43 am

Sanctaria wrote:
Merfurian wrote:
There's a thing called roleplay. I can roleplay in any way I want.

I'm pretty sure the thing called "impersonating the Secretariat" is a warn-able offence. Consider it's the Secretariat that chair the debates...



OOC: I think there is a difference between "impersonating the mods" (which you're thinking of) and impersonating the secretariat (who don't really exist apart from in RP). Impersonating a mod is where a person assumes the rights and powers of a mod - including the use of the trademark warn banners. I have not done so. Instead, I have merely roleplayed- in Goobergunchia's absence - the Chair of the debates.

The Secretariat is an entity which maintains order in this Assembly. It is merely a roleplay device, and is a clever way for the mods to keep an eye on things. There is some difference.

Now, I'd suggest we get back on topic
Issued from the Desk of the Very Honourable and Most Loyal Doctor Jonas K. Lazareedes LLD PC FJSCU FPC, FPAC(CI)ACCA Presidential Counsel
Former Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union, Former President of Appeals Chamber I of an Autonomous Court of Appeal, Most Loyal Counsellor and Advisor to the President of the Federal Republic (Member of the Federal Privy Council) Ambassador to the World Assembly
NOTE: I am gay, and I have asperger syndrome. My social skills are rubbish.

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:18 pm

Merfurian wrote:
Sanctaria wrote:I'm pretty sure the thing called "impersonating the Secretariat" is a warn-able offence. Consider it's the Secretariat that chair the debates...



OOC: I think there is a difference between "impersonating the mods" (which you're thinking of) and impersonating the secretariat (who don't really exist apart from in RP). Impersonating a mod is where a person assumes the rights and powers of a mod - including the use of the trademark warn banners. I have not done so. Instead, I have merely roleplayed- in Goobergunchia's absence - the Chair of the debates.

The Secretariat is an entity which maintains order in this Assembly. It is merely a roleplay device, and is a clever way for the mods to keep an eye on things. There is some difference.

Now, I'd suggest we get back on topic

OOC: "The Secretariat" is also used to refer to the mods (an OOC entity(s)) in an IC fashion, so you can see where the confusion could occur.

User avatar
Maltempata
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 152
Founded: May 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Maltempata » Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:29 pm

Our apologies if this question has already been dealt with, but a search did not reveal anything similar...

While, ostensibly the content and intent of this resolution seem laudable, our experience with legal systems tends more to institutionalizing reciprocity. Thus, in our experience, a fair and just legal system that allows a defense (or "convict") to appeal, in the cases cited in the resolution, also allows a prosecution to appeal where reciprocal problems have been uncovered.

Since the government of Maltempata is rather wary of lack of reciprocity, observes the one-sided nature of the existing resolution, and notes that our government would have been happier had reciprocity been included in the resolution, we feel we must ask the reason such reciprocity was omitted. Does the reciprocal resolution already exist or is it perhaps already proposed? If not, why it was omitted?

In asking for this clarification, we hope to to alleviate our concerns that - without reciprocity - this resolution will not draw the support it needs to pass.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:43 am

Maltempata wrote:Our apologies if this question has already been dealt with, but a search did not reveal anything similar...

While, ostensibly the content and intent of this resolution seem laudable, our experience with legal systems tends more to institutionalizing reciprocity. Thus, in our experience, a fair and just legal system that allows a defense (or "convict") to appeal, in the cases cited in the resolution, also allows a prosecution to appeal where reciprocal problems have been uncovered.

Since the government of Maltempata is rather wary of lack of reciprocity, observes the one-sided nature of the existing resolution, and notes that our government would have been happier had reciprocity been included in the resolution, we feel we must ask the reason such reciprocity was omitted. Does the reciprocal resolution already exist or is it perhaps already proposed? If not, why it was omitted?

In asking for this clarification, we hope to to alleviate our concerns that - without reciprocity - this resolution will not draw the support it needs to pass.


Originally, this resolution was combined with another to form an ostensibly comprehensive resolution on appeals. Unfortunately, my drafting partner and I felt we couldn't adequately legislate for both sides in a single resolution. We elected to split them instead, with one resolution dealing with prosecution appeals and the other dealing with defendant appeals. The former is now GA #198 Preventing Multiple Trials, the latter is, of course, this proposal.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Datavia
Attaché
 
Posts: 92
Founded: May 26, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Datavia » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:30 am

Datavia thinks that the better way to incorporate international legislation is step by step. This new proposal, like the recently passed Habeas Corpus Act, is very to the point. Both are well written and significant (the last one just increased our Civil Rights rating). I hope this bout (timidly initiated by the Foreign Marriage Recognition) is going to last. Of course, Datavia announces its vote FOR this current proposal. And let's forget Quelesh, for crying out loud!

User avatar
Sanctaria
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7368
Founded: Sep 12, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sanctaria » Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:44 am

Datavia wrote:Datavia thinks that the better way to incorporate international legislation is step by step. This new proposal, like the recently passed Habeas Corpus Act, is very to the point. Both are well written and significant (the last one just increased our Civil Rights rating). I hope this bout (timidly initiated by the Foreign Marriage Recognition) is going to last. Of course, Datavia announces its vote FOR this current proposal. And let's forget Quelesh, for crying out loud!

No "Act".

It's just "Habeas Corpus".
Divine Federation of Sanctaria

Ideological Bulwark #258
Member of UNOG

Dr. Katherine Saunders ORD DSJ, Sanctarian Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author of:
GA#109 GA#133 GA#176 GA#201 GA#222 GA#297
Frisbeeteria wrote:Do people not realize that moderators can tell when someone is wanking?

Luna Amore wrote:Sanc is always watching. Ever vigilant.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:25 am

For. A reasonable proposal that would protect the right to appeal one's conviction.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads