[PASSED] Habeas Corpus Act

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

Datavia votes FOR. A bad resolution in this case is better than no resolution at all (as will be the case according to the train of thought of most opponents to this proposal).

No no no! Bad legislation needs to be repealed, whereas a lack of it simply needs to be filled.

[Datavia]

Well, let's say a good enough resolution, as I think it's the case here.

[Monsters From The Id]

Yet another mob rule attempt to tell individual leaders how to run their nations. All who approve of this legislation, may you and yours find a quick route to violent assassination, and thousands of unmarked graves.

[Damanucus]

Datavia votes FOR. A bad resolution in this case is better than no resolution at all (as will be the case according to the train of thought of most opponents to this proposal).

No, a bad resolution is a bad resolution...

Well, let's say a good enough resolution, as I think it's the case here.

...and there is no such thing as a bad resolution that is good enough.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Mousebumples]

This proposal has an endless amount of issues - the first of which is the arbitrary time limits. That's already been debated here, so I won't go into that further.

However, another troubling issue has to do with the poor wording used with regards to the exception clause. That line reads as follows: and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

Due to that wording, such endeavors are still subject to the illogical time limits of the proposal. It would have been an easy enough fix - a mere reference that "the following shall not be subject to Clauses 1, 2, and 3," should have been sufficient to make these ridiculous limits inapplicable to the valid detention purposes that follow.

Perhaps this was the intention of the esteemed ambassador from Quelesh with regards to this proposal's text. However, I feel that it is illogical to expect a quarantine to be resolved (and the affected individuals released from their temporary detainment) within a 6 hour time period, which would be required by this proposal. I feel that it's illogical to expect nations to adequately and appropriately determine (and process!) individuals for whom a psychiatric commitment may be appropriate within the same 6 hour time period. Voluntary protective custody may also take a longer period of time to adequately arrange than the 6 hour time limit, but I'll admit that one's less of a concern due to the "voluntary" nature of such custody.

I wish I hadn't been distracted by various regional celebrations over the past few days (OOC: Easter family gatherings) so I had been better able to campaign against this proposal before it got to vote. However, I would expect that there may be a repeal draft coming forward shortly for the perusal of Your Excellencies.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Damanucus]

This proposal has an endless amount of issues - the first of which is the arbitrary time limits. That's already been debated here, so I won't go into that further.

However, another troubling issue has to do with the poor wording used with regards to the exception clause. That line reads as follows: and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

Due to that wording, such endeavors are still subject to the illogical time limits of the proposal. It would have been an easy enough fix - a mere reference that "the following shall not be subject to Clauses 1, 2, and 3," should have been sufficient to make these ridiculous limits inapplicable to the valid detention purposes that follow.

Perhaps this was the intention of the esteemed ambassador from Quelesh with regards to this proposal's text. However, I feel that it is illogical to expect a quarantine to be resolved (and the affected individuals released from their temporary detainment) within a 6 hour time period, which would be required by this proposal. I feel that it's illogical to expect nations to adequately and appropriately determine (and process!) individuals for whom a psychiatric commitment may be appropriate within the same 6 hour time period. Voluntary protective custody may also take a longer period of time to adequately arrange than the 6 hour time limit, but I'll admit that one's less of a concern due to the "voluntary" nature of such custody.

I wish I hadn't been distracted by various regional celebrations over the past few days (OOC: Easter family gatherings) so I had been better able to campaign against this proposal before it got to vote. However, I would expect that there may be a repeal draft coming forward shortly for the perusal of Your Excellencies.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

And again I offer my services. And if any of you laugh at that...well...I shall make your stay here shorter than expected...somehow...

Stephanie Orman
Representatives, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Rep, can I borrow one of your supercannons?

[Mousebumples]

And again I offer my services.

Such services are gladly welcomed in this thread, where I have posted the first (rough) draft of the repeal.

Now that that has been established, I would hope that we can keep the repeal discussion in that other thread so as to not clog up Quelesh's At Vote thread further.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quelesh]

However, another troubling issue has to do with the poor wording used with regards to the exception clause. That line reads as follows: and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

Due to that wording, such endeavors are still subject to the illogical time limits of the proposal. It would have been an easy enough fix - a mere reference that "the following shall not be subject to Clauses 1, 2, and 3," should have been sufficient to make these ridiculous limits inapplicable to the valid detention purposes that follow.

Perhaps this was the intention of the esteemed ambassador from Quelesh with regards to this proposal's text. However, I feel that it is illogical to expect a quarantine to be resolved (and the affected individuals released from their temporary detainment) within a 6 hour time period, which would be required by this proposal. I feel that it's illogical to expect nations to adequately and appropriately determine (and process!) individuals for whom a psychiatric commitment may be appropriate within the same 6 hour time period. Voluntary protective custody may also take a longer period of time to adequately arrange than the 6 hour time limit, but I'll admit that one's less of a concern due to the "voluntary" nature of such custody.

This is not true. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, because the resolution explicitly says so. Member states will not have to release involuntarily institutionalized mental patients after six hours, because such institutionalization is not prohibited by this resolution. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting any involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, including involuntary psychiatric commitment which lasts longer than six hours.

If a member state forcibly transports an individual to a mental institution as part of an involuntary commitment, this resolution will not require that member state to release her after six hours. If this resolution did require that, then this resolution would be prohibiting the continued involuntary psychiatric commitment of this patient; but we know that this cannot be, because nothing in this resolution can be interpreted as prohibiting the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients.

You are severely misinterpreting the CLARIFIES section.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Damanucus]

However, another troubling issue has to do with the poor wording used with regards to the exception clause. That line reads as follows: and CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following:

Due to that wording, such endeavors are still subject to the illogical time limits of the proposal. It would have been an easy enough fix - a mere reference that "the following shall not be subject to Clauses 1, 2, and 3," should have been sufficient to make these ridiculous limits inapplicable to the valid detention purposes that follow.

Perhaps this was the intention of the esteemed ambassador from Quelesh with regards to this proposal's text. However, I feel that it is illogical to expect a quarantine to be resolved (and the affected individuals released from their temporary detainment) within a 6 hour time period, which would be required by this proposal. I feel that it's illogical to expect nations to adequately and appropriately determine (and process!) individuals for whom a psychiatric commitment may be appropriate within the same 6 hour time period. Voluntary protective custody may also take a longer period of time to adequately arrange than the 6 hour time limit, but I'll admit that one's less of a concern due to the "voluntary" nature of such custody.

This is not true. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, because the resolution explicitly says so. Member states will not have to release involuntarily institutionalized mental patients after six hours, because such institutionalization is not prohibited by this resolution. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting any involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, including involuntary psychiatric commitment which lasts longer than six hours.

If a member state forcibly transports an individual to a mental institution as part of an involuntary commitment, this resolution will not require that member state to release her after six hours. If this resolution did require that, then this resolution would be prohibiting the continued involuntary psychiatric commitment of this patient; but we know that this cannot be, because nothing in this resolution can be interpreted as prohibiting the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients.

You are severely misinterpreting the CLARIFIES section.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

Ah, no. This may be your resolution, but your message regarding that part of the resolution is as vague as it comes. I hate having to refer back to something I said before, for fear of doing one of the things I hate most—argumentum ad nauseum—but I feel I must:

Which brings me back to my nice little point on exceptions. If you want to prevent these things from happening, then tell us what it will affect. Namely, this is probably closer to what it should've been:

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

(The rest, as I see it, are already covered anyhow in other resolutions.)

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.

Now, do you want to ask me again why my formatting is more superior to yours? Although, given that there is less than three hours left in voting, and your act is going to pass with little contest, I can barely see you doing it, and instead using the time to gloat over the fact that you passed another resolution, despite fairly audible protests to the contrary.

Stephanie Orman
Representatives, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Mousebumples]

This is not true. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, because the resolution explicitly says so. Member states will not have to release involuntarily institutionalized mental patients after six hours, because such institutionalization is not prohibited by this resolution. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting any involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, including involuntary psychiatric commitment which lasts longer than six hours.

If a member state forcibly transports an individual to a mental institution as part of an involuntary commitment, this resolution will not require that member state to release her after six hours. If this resolution did require that, then this resolution would be prohibiting the continued involuntary psychiatric commitment of this patient; but we know that this cannot be, because nothing in this resolution can be interpreted as prohibiting the involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients.

You are severely misinterpreting the CLARIFIES section.

I"m not saying that people need to be dismissed from any involuntary psychiatric commitment after 6 hours. I'm saying that they have 6 hours to determine if an individual needs to be committed. (Provided, of course, that there's no crime to speak of, otherwise) I can't speak for other member nations, but psychiatric evaluations (prior to psychiatric commitment) often happen at the police station as soon as a licensed psychiatrist is available to perform the evaluation. Sometimes the psychiatrists are unable to arrive immediately to perform the evaluation and some evaluations take longer if they are not as clear cut of a case. We are not in the practice of committing people for such a purpose and then going, "Just kidding, you shouldn't have been committed at all, but we had to rush things because of this terrible resolution that will be on the books in a few hours." Apparently, we may have to consider getting into that line of work, however, in the short term.

The involuntary commitment of the mentally ill is absolutely allowed. However, the evaluation process that may be necessary, leading up to that involuntary commitment is severely curtailed by the limitations of this proposal.

You are underselling the harms of your proposal's text, as you have an oversimplified interpretation of what the involuntary psychiatric commitment process is like around the NS multiverse.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

EDIT: Actually, after further consideration, I'm fairly confident that the Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment (IPC), as listed by this proposal, would be limited to the 6 hour time limit. (Provided, of course, that there's no crime to speak of, otherwise) After all, there's nothing outlawing such a commitment, but the time limit standards set by the proposal would still apply due to the lack of any clause that exempts the IPC from such criteria. It's not illegal - certainly not, since the clause in question specifically allows for IPC. However, it doesn't "RESERVE the right for legislation on such matters" in future proposals. It doesn't SPECIFY that the items that follow shall not be subject to the time limits. I shall have to update my arguments accordingly, now ...

[Damanucus]

Linard's phone rings. He picks it up.
"Hello?"
"Stephanie Orman, Your Excellency."
"Steph! What's happening?"
"Habeas Corpus Act has just been passed."
The line goes quiet for a few minutes, before Linard utters a low "Oh."

---

Detective Constable Rambahn Vishina sat at his temporary desk in Frebenere. He was one of the officers who had been gathered from across the country for Operation Umbridge, the task force gathered to find and arrest the Terrible Gang, and had been having interesting fun in the meantime, especially since the Gang disappeared below. So they had been stuck in the one place, while they waited to hear another peep.
His partner, Detective Constable Rachel Balliard, walked into the office, towards his desk, and threw the newspaper she was holding folded over towards him. "Read."
He picked it up, and read.

Nomadic Enquirer

---

Habeas Corpus laws reinstated

"Okay, this doesn't sound so bad."
"That depends," Rachel stated, sitting down on the other side of the desk. "It could certainly bring the Gang back into the open again. But it does also mean that we could be encountering the same problems again: unexpected acquittals and inexplicable closed cases."
"Not to mention they have demonstrated their ability to manipulate the law," Rambahn added.
"And it's about to get even more interesting." Detective Sergeant Brian Keep's voice made itself pretty obvious as he entered the room. "Police Commissioner has just contacted me, as he has with all the DS's involved. Operation Umbridge is being shut down."
"Hang on, wait, what!?" was the collective response from the two DC's.
"The Terrible Gang, according to the Commissioner, are not an existent threat."
"Not an existent threat?" Rachel asked in a tone that betrayed her shock.
"The Terrible Gang, according to the Commissioner, do not exist. And the crimes attributed to the alleged members are examples of police attacking the people they have been sworn to protect."
They were shocked at the about-face. The Gang had been running havok across the nation, and now they were being let off the hook forever. "We need to keep in contact with everyone involved, because we cannot—"
"One step ahead of you, there, Rambahn," Brian interjected. "All the Sergeants involved have been in contact with me. We're keeping our teams in contact with each other, so we can all respond at once should the need arise."
"I have no doubt the Commissioner will be keeping an eye on us, just to make sure we don't become vigilantes," Rachel noted.
"I don't doubt that either," Rambahn confirmed.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
(plus others, as noted)

[Quelesh]

Thank you to everyone who helped this resolution pass with over 75% of the vote! This is long overdue.

Ah, no. This may be your resolution, but your message regarding that part of the resolution is as vague as it comes. I hate having to refer back to something I said before, for fear of doing one of the things I hate most—argumentum ad nauseum—but I feel I must:

Which brings me back to my nice little point on exceptions. If you want to prevent these things from happening, then tell us what it will affect. Namely, this is probably closer to what it should've been:

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

(The rest, as I see it, are already covered anyhow in other resolutions.)

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.

Now, do you want to ask me again why my formatting is more superior to yours? Although, given that there is less than three hours left in voting, and your act is going to pass with little contest, I can barely see you doing it, and instead using the time to gloat over the fact that you passed another resolution, despite fairly audible protests to the contrary.

The wording of the CLARIFIES section is not vague at all. It is very explicit: "nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted..." Period. Clauses 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting involuntary psychiatric commitment, or necessary medical quarantines, or anything else in the CLARIFIES section. Nothing could be more clear. It baffles me how anyone could think that this resolution prohibits involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients, when the resolution explicitly says that it does not.

I"m not saying that people need to be dismissed from any involuntary psychiatric commitment after 6 hours. I'm saying that they have 6 hours to determine if an individual needs to be committed. (Provided, of course, that there's no crime to speak of, otherwise) I can't speak for other member nations, but psychiatric evaluations (prior to psychiatric commitment) often happen at the police station as soon as a licensed psychiatrist is available to perform the evaluation. Sometimes the psychiatrists are unable to arrive immediately to perform the evaluation and some evaluations take longer if they are not as clear cut of a case. We are not in the practice of committing people for such a purpose and then going, "Just kidding, you shouldn't have been committed at all, but we had to rush things because of this terrible resolution that will be on the books in a few hours." Apparently, we may have to consider getting into that line of work, however, in the short term.

The involuntary commitment of the mentally ill is absolutely allowed. However, the evaluation process that may be necessary, leading up to that involuntary commitment is severely curtailed by the limitations of this proposal.

Is your nation in the habit of forcibly locking people up against their will, as a prelude to their involuntary psychiatric institutionalization, without even having a damn good reason to think that they're not only mentally ill but so mentally ill as to be genuinely dangerous? If your nation has a good enough reason to believe that a person is so mentally ill as to make her a genuine danger to the public, good enough to justify sending people to forcibly drag her to a locked room against her will, then surely it has a good enough reason to consider her "mentally ill" for the purposes of clause 9 of this resolution. If you don't have a reason to consider her "mentally ill" at all, much less so mentally ill as to constitute a danger requiring her to be locked up, then why are you locking her up in the first place?

EDIT: Actually, after further consideration, I'm fairly confident that the Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment (IPC), as listed by this proposal, would be limited to the 6 hour time limit. (Provided, of course, that there's no crime to speak of, otherwise) After all, there's nothing outlawing such a commitment, but the time limit standards set by the proposal would still apply due to the lack of any clause that exempts the IPC from such criteria. It's not illegal - certainly not, since the clause in question specifically allows for IPC. However, it doesn't "RESERVE the right for legislation on such matters" in future proposals. It doesn't SPECIFY that the items that follow shall not be subject to the time limits. I shall have to update my arguments accordingly, now ...

This resolution cannot be interpreted as prohibiting any involuntary psychiatric commitment of mentally ill patients. Your argument is that if a patient is involuntarily institutionalized, then once the six hour mark has been reached, this resolution prohibits her continued involuntary psychiatric commitment. But this resolution cannot prohibit her continued involuntary psychiatric commitment, because nothing in this resolution can be interpreted as doing so, because the resolution explicitly says as much.

The explicit denotation of the resolution text counters your argument.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

"This is another example of the tendancy of Quelesh's WA staff to use emotive language to get proposals passed by those nations commonly referenced as 'lemmings'. This proposal is a disaster for international law, and the swift repeal in the drafting stage is the only thing preventing the Stalliongrad delegation from leaving the WA alltogether. If we do, we'll be filling our officespace with cement out of spite."

The Ambassador for Stalliongrad stands and leaves the room in disgust.

[Merfurian]

"This is another example of the tendancy of Quelesh's WA staff to use emotive language to get proposals passed by those nations commonly referenced as 'lemmings'. This proposal is a disaster for international law, and the swift repeal in the drafting stage is the only thing preventing the Stalliongrad delegation from leaving the WA alltogether. If we do, we'll be filling our officespace with cement out of spite."

The Ambassador for Stalliongrad stands and leaves the room in disgust.

In the event that you leave, can we have dibs on your office?

Klause Uliyan
etc