Limitations on Banishment Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
CONCERNED that certain member states wish to enact banishment for the most minor of offences, such as the possession of tobacco farms, seeds or cigarettes,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS the use of banishment as a valid punishment by member states, unless:
the only legal alternative punishments are life imprisonment or execution, and
the individual to be banished is given adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship,
ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:
hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state,
have the authority to dismiss cases that are patently frivolous, and
provide access to applications of immigration, citizenship, and/or passports to banished persons seeking relocation,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution empowers the CIJ to claim civil jurisdiction on non-member states or criminal jurisdiction on any state,
TASKS the World Assembly Office of Building Management to construct facilities adjacent to the World Assembly Headquarters for the purposes of housing banished persons for the duration of any necessary delay incurred as a result of this resolution or of prior unrepealed legislation,
ALLOWS member states to send banished persons to the aforementioned facilities for the duration and only for the duration of any necessary delay incurred as a result of this resolution or of prior unrepealed legislation,
DECLARES that member states utilising such facilities are not absolved of their responsibilities under Clause Three,
MANDATES that member states are required to inform banished persons, extant and ongoing, of the provisions established herein,
ENCOURAGES member states to provide citizenship to individuals that have been left stateless as a result of breaches of this resolution's mandates,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
Neville: It appears that banishment is not covered by existing legislation, so I tried my hand at severely restricting the extent to which a member state can utilise it. Comments are, of course, appreciated.
Fairburn: I certainly don't appreciate them.
Barbera: (enters the chamber)
Neville: What are you doing here?
Barbera: Please, please, may I join you? I want to get to know everyone.
Fairburn: No. Get out.
Neville: Come on, let her participate.
Fairburn: Look, I don't want any trouble. As long as she doesn't kick up a fuss, I'm fine if she decides to join us, but I don't see the appeal of conversing with foreign delegations. It's an exercise in futility.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
HEREBY:
1) DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the expulsion of a sapient being from their country of citizenship and the enforced prohibition of their return, either temporarily or permanently,
2) DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as a sapient being who is serving banishment,
3) PROHIBITS member states from engaging in banishment of their citizens, unless the person to be banished is also a citizen of a country from which they are not banished,
4) REQUIRES member states to allow banished persons back into their territory with immediate effect, unless that person has since lost citizenship of that member state,
5) MANDATES that member states should make a good-faith attempt to provide compensation to banished persons or, if this is not possible, to their next of kin,
6) CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
7) ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS member states from engaging in banishment of their citizens, unless the individual to be banished is also a citizen of a country from which they are not banished,
REQUIRES member states to allow banished persons back into their territory and to restore their citizenship with immediate effect, unless the banished person is a citizen of a country from which they are not banished,
MANDATES that member states should make a good-faith attempt to provide compensation to banished persons or, if this is not possible, to their next of kin, unless the banishment of said person was lawful under the mandates of this resolution,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS member states from banishing their citizens, unless the individual to be banished is also a citizen of a country from which they are not banished,
REQUIRES member states to allow banished persons back into their territory and to restore their citizenship with immediate effect, unless the banished person is a citizen of a country from which they are not banished,
MANDATES that member states should make a good-faith attempt to provide compensation to banished persons or, if this is not possible, to their next of kin, unless the banishment of said person was lawful under the mandates of this resolution,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS the use of banishment as a valid punishment, unless:
the only legal alternative punishments are life imprisonment or execution, and
the individual to be banished is given adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship,
ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:
hear cases for appeal from banished persons against the banishing state,
hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state, and
provide access to applications of immigration, citizenship, and/or passports to banished persons seeking relocation,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS the use of banishment as a valid punishment, unless:
the only legal alternative punishments are life imprisonment or execution, and
the individual to be banished is given adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship,
ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:
hear cases for appeal from banished persons against the banishing state,
hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state, and
provide access to applications of immigration, citizenship, and/or passports to banished persons seeking relocation,
MANDATES that member states are required to inform banished persons, extant and ongoing, of the provisions established herein,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
CONCERNED that certain member states wish to enact banishment for the most minor of offences, such as the possession of tobacco farms, seeds or cigarettes,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS the use of banishment as a valid punishment, unless:
the only legal alternative punishments are life imprisonment or execution, and
the individual to be banished is given adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship,
ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:
hear cases for appeal from banished persons against the banishing state,
hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state, and
provide access to applications of immigration, citizenship, and/or passports to banished persons seeking relocation,
MANDATES that member states are required to inform banished persons, extant and ongoing, of the provisions established herein,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
CONCERNED that certain member states wish to enact banishment for the most minor of offences, such as the possession of tobacco farms, seeds or cigarettes,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS the use of banishment as a valid punishment, unless:
the only legal alternative punishments are life imprisonment or execution, and
the individual to be banished is given adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship,
ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:
hear cases for appeal from banished persons against the banishing state,
hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state, and
provide access to applications of immigration, citizenship, and/or passports to banished persons seeking relocation,
TASKS the World Assembly Office of Building Management to construct facilities for the purposes of housing banished persons for the duration of any necessary delay incurred as a result of this resolution or of prior unrepealed legislation,
ALLOWS member states to send banished persons to the aforementioned facilities for the duration and only for the duration of any necessary delay incurred as a result of this resolution or of prior unrepealed legislation,
DECLARES that member states utilising such facilities are not absolved of their responsibilities under Clause Three,
MANDATES that member states are required to inform banished persons, extant and ongoing, of the provisions established herein,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Banishment Ban Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant
The World Assembly,
NOTING the great strides past resolutions have taken in civil rights,
WISHING to continue those strides,
ACKNOWLEDGING that member states should, as far as possible, have the right to maintain control over their own penal code,
BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,
CONCERNED that certain member states wish to enact banishment for the most minor of offences, such as the possession of tobacco farms, seeds or cigarettes,
HEREBY:
DEFINES banishment, for the purposes of this resolution, as the removal of an individual's citizenship and the enforced prohibition of said individual's return, either temporarily or permanently,
DEFINES a banished person, for the purposes of this resolution, as an individual who is serving banishment,
PROHIBITS the use of banishment as a valid punishment, unless:
the only legal alternative punishments are life imprisonment or execution, and
the individual to be banished is given adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship,
ESTABLISHES the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), which shall:
hear cases for torts from banished persons against the banishing state, and
provide access to applications of immigration, citizenship, and/or passports to banished persons seeking relocation,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution empowers the CIJ to claim criminal jurisdiction,
TASKS the World Assembly Office of Building Management to construct facilities for the purposes of housing banished persons for the duration of any necessary delay incurred as a result of this resolution or of prior unrepealed legislation,
ALLOWS member states to send banished persons to the aforementioned facilities for the duration and only for the duration of any necessary delay incurred as a result of this resolution or of prior unrepealed legislation,
DECLARES that member states utilising such facilities are not absolved of their responsibilities under Clause Three,
MANDATES that member states are required to inform banished persons, extant and ongoing, of the provisions established herein,
CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from declaring a foreign citizen a persona non grata,
ADVISES that the title of this resolution should not be spoken five times quickly and consecutively.
Este gives an arch smile. "I take it this was prompted by the laughably extreme punishments for the proposed tobacco ban? I swear I'm about ready to start smoking in protest of the poor dear. As for your own draft, I find it an adequate start. You've got my support so far, darlings. Quick question though, wouldn't banishment in itself entail loss of citizenship? Or at least, the effects of a lengthy enough banishment? I realize, dears, that you are trying to cover all contingencies, but that one particular exception strikes me as a bit odd."
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:29 pm
by Linux and the X
This seems a sensible enough idea. We probably will suggest fiddling with the details.
~c
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:12 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
States of Glory WA Office wrote:MANDATES that member states should make a good-faith attempt to provide compensation to banished persons or, if this is not possible, to their next of kin,
PARSONS: So what you're saying is that after due process of law, hearing both sides of the case, and declaration of a fair verdict, those which governments have already banished are to be compensated for something which was at the time: (1) not illegal, (2) judicially mandated, and (3) declared in open court. Rewarding the enemies of the state is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Secondarily, could you explain to me the difference between a refugee and a banished person?
(57 GA 'Refugee Protection'): A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality...
States of Glory WA Office wrote:MANDATES that member states should make a good-faith attempt to provide compensation to banished persons or, if this is not possible, to their next of kin,
PARSONS: So what you're saying is that after due process of law, hearing both sides of the case, and declaration of a fair verdict, those which governments have already banished are to be compensated for something which was at the time: (1) not illegal, (2) judicially mandated, and (3) declared in open court. Rewarding the enemies of the state is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Secondarily, could you explain to me the difference between a refugee and a banished person?
(57 GA 'Refugee Protection'): A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality...
Off the top of my head - and this is literally just the first thing that sprang to mind - refugees are people who did nothing wrong, where are banished people have to at least have been convicted of something, even if it was by a farce of a trial.
PARSONS: So what you're saying is that after due process of law, hearing both sides of the case, and declaration of a fair verdict, those which governments have already banished are to be compensated for something which was at the time: (1) not illegal, (2) judicially mandated, and (3) declared in open court. Rewarding the enemies of the state is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Secondarily, could you explain to me the difference between a refugee and a banished person?
(57 GA 'Refugee Protection'): A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality...
Off the top of my head - and this is literally just the first thing that sprang to mind - refugees are people who did nothing wrong, where are banished people have to at least have been convicted of something, even if it was by a farce of a trial.
I think, first off, we need to establish whether a banished person still possesses nationality.
Calladan wrote:Off the top of my head - and this is literally just the first thing that sprang to mind - refugees are people who did nothing wrong, where are banished people have to at least have been convicted of something, even if it was by a farce of a trial.
I think, first off, we need to establish whether a banished person still possesses nationality.
Exactly how can you not have a nationality?
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:28 am
by Hannasea
"The Hannasean Federation stands opposed to the death penalty. While the World Assembly permits its member states to execute their citizens, we will therefore oppose any proposal that seeks to limit punishments other than the death penalty, as we believe the net impact of such laws will simply be to lead states that previously banished citizens to execute them instead.
"If the WA ever bans capital punishment we will be happy to reconsider our position on this resolution."
Daniella Russel, MA PhD (who is not an ambassador) Representing the office of: Ambassador Brittany Hepburn (who is) Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:00 am
by States of Glory WA Office
Tahkranul wrote:I take it this was prompted by the laughably extreme punishments for the proposed tobacco ban?
Neville: We are dedicated to removing loopholes from international legislation.
Tahkranul wrote:Quick question though, wouldn't banishment in itself entail loss of citizenship? Or at least, the effects of a lengthy enough banishment?
Neville: I swear that member states are not allowed to make people stateless by removing citizenship, though I may be making an error.
States of Glory WA Office wrote:MANDATES that member states should make a good-faith attempt to provide compensation to banished persons or, if this is not possible, to their next of kin,
PARSONS: So what you're saying is that after due process of law, hearing both sides of the case, and declaration of a fair verdict, those which governments have already banished are to be compensated for something which was at the time: (1) not illegal, (2) judicially mandated, and (3) declared in open court. Rewarding the enemies of the state is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Neville: Torture would have been perfectly legal in some member states prior to being banned. Should victims of torture before the ban not be compensated?
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Secondarily, could you explain to me the difference between a refugee and a banished person?
(57 GA 'Refugee Protection'): A refugee shall be defined, for the purposes of this resolution, as any person who is for any reason outside the country of their nationality and cannot avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality...
Neville: That would require us to distinguish between nationality and citizenship, which is tricky as neither of us...
Barbera: None of us.
Neville: Right, none of us have enough knowledge on the matter. Perhaps you can render this proposal moot through your own proposal?
Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC: Puerto Ricans in the United States are not US citizens. They are US nationals. They cannot vote in United States elections. But if their nationality were stripped, that would mean that their property could be expropriated, their person deported, and make it impossible for any state to recognise them. Nationality does entail the privilege of some basic rights, and the purpose of this proposal is to protect those rights. A resolution preventing the stripping of one's citizenship without due process is something which I would support. But it is not this proposal.
OOC: Would you advise, then, that I rework my Banishment proposal to deal with loss of citizenship instead?
OOC: It is your proposal. I don't really know. I still oppose because I think it interferes in the sovereign ability of governments to administer law and justice. I also agree with Gruenburg in that banishment or exile probably trades off with capital punishment, and therefore, banning it would increase the number of people executed by the state.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:PARSONS: So what you're saying is that after due process of law, hearing both sides of the case, and declaration of a fair verdict, those which governments have already banished are to be compensated for something which was at the time: (1) not illegal, (2) judicially mandated, and (3) declared in open court. Rewarding the enemies of the state is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
Neville: Torture would have been perfectly legal in some member states prior to being banned. Should victims of torture before the ban not be compensated?
PARSONS: Yes. I am opposed to all ex post facto laws (OOC: Which, having just noticed this, 79 GA doesn't prevent the WA from passing an ex post facto law. That should be changed). But if we extend this to the question of humanitarian conventions, most people would agree that states cannot torture their citizens, even absent international legislation. It is an international norm. Therefore, the law exists as a matter of customary international law and not one of statutory law, of which this banishment proposal would be part.
States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: Would you advise, then, that I rework my Banishment proposal to deal with loss of citizenship instead?
OOC: It is your proposal. I don't really know. I still oppose because I think it interferes in the sovereign ability of governments to administer law and justice. I also agree with Gruenburg in that banishment or exile probably trades off with capital punishment, and therefore, banning it would increase the number of people executed by the state.
OOC: I'll wait for you to finish drafting your statelessness proposal, then I'll go from there.
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: Torture would have been perfectly legal in some member states prior to being banned. Should victims of torture before the ban not be compensated?
PARSONS: Yes. I am opposed to all ex post facto laws (OOC: Which, having just noticed this, 79 GA doesn't prevent the WA from passing an ex post facto law. That should be changed). But if we extend this to the question of humanitarian conventions, most people would agree that states cannot torture their citizens, even absent international legislation. It is an international norm. Therefore, the law exists as a matter of customary international law and not one of statutory law, of which this banishment proposal would be part.
Neville: I'm not quite sure what your argument is. Please may you rephrase that?
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:44 pm
by States of Glory WA Office
Neville: With the recent passage of Reducing Statelessness, we, having made a few modifications, have decided to revisit this draft.
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:42 pm
by Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle
A purple pony teleports into the debate chamber. The most surprising aspect of this is that one of the sovereign rulers of Equestria is representing her nation to the World Assembly, instead of having some other pony do it. Twilight Sparkle quickly reads over the draft. She was always a fast reader, but hundreds of years of practice have made her quite adept at perusing pages.
"While I certainly can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to protect ponies' rights, banishment is an effective law enforcement mechanism when used appropriately." Her Majesty speaks up in a quiet voice. "My mentor Princess Celestia once banished her own sister to our moon, because she was intent on bringing about everlasting darkness. Some ponies have called this action too harsh, but it served as an effective prison until such a time as Princess Luna could be redeemed.
"The villain known as Tirek is currently serving a sentence in Tartarus, where he was banished after absorbing all the magic in Equestria. Allowing him back into our nation would be... bad." Twilight finished lamely. "I cannot support this proposal."
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:53 pm
by Wallenburg
"Clauses four and five extend beyond the subject of banished citizens, and require member states to compensate illegal immigrants whom they have deported."
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:41 am
by Imperium Anglorum
Wallenburg wrote:"Clauses four and five extend beyond the subject of banished citizens, and require member states to compensate illegal immigrants whom they have deported."
How? If illegal immigrants do not have citizenship, how would such banishment be effected, if banishment is defined to require the revocation of citizenship which they do not have?
Wallenburg wrote:"Clauses four and five extend beyond the subject of banished citizens, and require member states to compensate illegal immigrants whom they have deported."
How? If illegal immigrants do not have citizenship, how would such banishment be effected, if banishment is defined to require the revocation of citizenship which they do not have?
"Ah, I had not noticed that. Thank you, Ambassador."
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:50 am
by Separatist Peoples
"Does this apply merely to national banishment, or can subnational entities banish an individual, and thus revoke their "community citizenship", while not expelling them from the nation as a whole? I ask on behalf of the various tribal entities that frequent the Assembly. The C.D.S.P. subscribes to a less "holistic" approach, opting instead for razor wire and high walls."
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:57 am
by States of Glory WA Office
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Does this apply merely to national banishment, or can subnational entities banish an individual, and thus revoke their "community citizenship", while not expelling them from the nation as a whole? I ask on behalf of the various tribal entities that frequent the Assembly. The C.D.S.P. subscribes to a less "holistic" approach, opting instead for razor wire and high walls."
Fairburn: That depends. Which answer would make you support this proposal?
Neville: (facepalms)
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:The most surprising aspect of this is that one of the sovereign rulers of Equestria is representing her nation to the World Assembly, instead of having some other pony do it.
OOC: No, the most surprising thing about this is the fact that you're actually using this nation.
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:"While I certainly can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to protect ponies' rights, banishment is an effective law enforcement mechanism when used appropriately."
Fairburn: That is why this proposal allows banishment under certain circumstances. However, the effectiveness of banishment as a punishment is meaningless if the punishment is a breach of civil rights. Some nations believe that torture is effective; should we not ban it, then?
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:Her Majesty speaks up in a quiet voice. "My mentor Princess Celestia once banished her own sister to our moon, because she was intent on bringing about everlasting darkness. Some ponies have called this action too harsh, but it served as an effective prison until such a time as Princess Luna could be redeemed.
Fairburn: If this sister of hers was rendered stateless due to her banishment, that was a horrifying situation which this proposal is trying to prevent.
Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle wrote:"The villain known as Tirek is currently serving a sentence in Tartarus, where he was banished after absorbing all the magic in Equestria. Allowing him back into our nation would be... bad." Twilight finished lamely. "I cannot support this proposal."
Fairburn: Oh, boo-hoo. If this Tirek character is now stateless because of your government, I'll simply put more effort into pursuing this proposal. Why are you all quiet, Neville? Speak up, man!
Neville: (gapes at the ponies)
Fairburn: (rolls his eyes)
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:10 am
by Wealthatonia
Ambassador, I ask you to think clearly about this, Shouldn't anyone who is dangerous enough to be a threat to the nation be able to be banished? Wealthatonia has banished many of its criminals and we're doing great.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:13 am
by States of Glory WA Office
Wealthatonia wrote:Ambassador, I ask you to think clearly about this, Shouldn't anyone who is dangerous enough to be a threat to the nation be able to be banished? Wealthatonia has banished many of its criminals and we're doing great.
Fairburn: Where, pray tell, do those criminals go once they're rendered completely stateless? If you're telling me that you only banish criminals if they have dual citizenship, you have nothing to fear from this proposal. Otherwise, what you're doing is the exact opposite of justice.
Wealthatonia wrote:Ambassador, I ask you to think clearly about this, Shouldn't anyone who is dangerous enough to be a threat to the nation be able to be banished? Wealthatonia has banished many of its criminals and we're doing great.
Fairburn: Where, pray tell, do those criminals go once they're rendered completely stateless? If you're telling me that you only banish criminals if they have dual citizenship, you have nothing to fear from this proposal. Otherwise, what you're doing is the exact opposite of justice.
We don't care where they go, they violated the law in a heinous way, so we don't want them here. We don't check if criminals have citizenship anywhere else because we don't want them here and their damn lawyer got them off death row, so banishment is the only thing we can do. And I don't think that's NOT justice, that's doing right by your country by removing the tyranny of crime and putting it somewhere else. If you have a problem with that, than you need to examine your own crime rate
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:40 am
by States of Glory WA Office
Wealthatonia wrote:If you have a problem with that, than you need to examine your own crime rate
Fairburn: We've checked the WA census. It's quite clear that your methods aren't as effective as you first thought.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:10 am
by New Folsom Penal Colony
Two men enter the debate hall, both wearing identical blue and yellow coveralls. However, that is where the similarities end. The first man who walked in was pale with jet-black hair. A few days of stubble covered his face, and his uniform was noticeably wrinkled.
"What's this? Yet another attempt for the World Assembly to ruin legitimate business interests?" The first man spoke with a distinct Eastern European accent."Biggs, that doesn't sound too good, does it?"
"Sure don't," Biggs rumbled, towering over the first man by a good foot and a half and resting his hand possessively on a very imposing nightstick. Biggs could not be a sharper contrast to the first man; where he was pale, Biggs' skin was dark as coal. Where the first man was shabby, his coveralls were starched and impeccably cleaned, and were festooned in reinforced pieces of armor and utility tools. And where the first man's face might have passed for handsome were it a little less angular, Biggs' face sported a wicked scar over a milky right eye.
"The New Folsom Penal Colony operates as a private penal facility on a remote northern island. We take some of society's most dangerous and burdensome criminals...for a price. In order to give our operation a sense of legitimacy, we are bringing ourselves into compliance with World Assembly regulations. Nothing ex post facto, you see. However, this...proposal? It would make illegitimate our entire operations. The Warden just can't have that."
The first man tossed himself casually into an open seat. "So he sends me, Foreman Andre Cizek, to see what we can work out. Surely there is some way an exception can be made for those contractually deported and not merely shown the exit?"
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:08 am
by Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle
States of Glory WA Office wrote:OOC: No, the most surprising thing about this is the fact that you're actually using this nation.
OOC: Banishment was a very fitting topic for this nation. Not so much for the other one.
Fairburn: That is why this proposal allows banishment under certain circumstances. However, the effectiveness of banishment as a punishment is meaningless if the punishment is a breach of civil rights. Some nations believe that torture is effective; should we not ban it, then?
Fairburn: If this sister of hers was rendered stateless due to her banishment, that was a horrifying situation which this proposal is trying to prevent.
Fairburn: Oh, boo-hoo. If this Tirek character is now stateless because of your government, I'll simply put more effort into pursuing this proposal. Why are you all quiet, Neville? Speak up, man!
"But Sir," Twilight objects, "you would have us allow dangerous criminals, who cannot otherwise be imprisoned, return to our nation. The lives of ordinary ponies would be at stake. Torture is reprehensible and doesn't save ponies' lives... but banishment has saved my nation. Multiple times!
"Please," she pleads, "for the sake of my little ponies, make changes to this proposal."
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:17 am
by Skylus
"....We are gathered today in this courtroom to discuss the potential banishment of the former Skylus Ambassador, Fredrick Hall. Do you have anything to say?"
All eyes moved to the front of the room. "...Your Honor...I have been accused." "And who might have accused you, pray?"
Hall surged to his feet and jabbed a handcuffed hand in the direction of another Ambassador. "Him. He accused me, just to have a higher position!!"
The clamor in the room rose to a roar as Fredrick sat back down in his chair.
Judge Greg slammed his gavel down upon the pedestal. "SILENCE!" As the room quieted, the older man cleared his throat and glared down at the man who Hall had accused. "Well, Forester? What say you?"
"I say that what he has said is a lie. I have known everyone in this room my entire life, sir. I wouldn't dare do such a thing."
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:41 pm