NationStates

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.

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

This is a very good proposal. Approved.

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

I intend to support it

Looks like we're a third of the way there! Keep dem endos a-comin'!

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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".

For. A reasonable proposal that would protect the right to appeal one's conviction.