[PASSED][#374 REPLACEMENT] Equal Justice Under Law

[Greater Cesnica]

Then be prepared to go broke. Police forces and by nature governments are obliged to pay for the defense of their officers unless they are terminated from the force, which isn't as easy as the news makes it out to be.

Dame Allania sighs, then looks to the delegates from Greater Cesnica and Daarwyth. "Trellania will support the repeal and this bill if you delay the replacement just long enough for us to file ten thousand lawsuits against Wayne. And only against Wayne."

(OOC: Our particular convo there was OOC. But the lawsuits against Wayne seem fun )

[WayNeacTia]

Dame Allania sighs, then looks to the delegates from Greater Cesnica and Daarwyth. "Trellania will support the repeal and this bill if you delay the replacement just long enough for us to file ten thousand lawsuits against Wayne. And only against Wayne."

(OOC: Our particular convo there was OOC. But the lawsuits against Wayne seem fun )

Sue away. I'm broke, but sue away.

[Daarwyrth]

Jylien Barwald, Press Secretary: "After a brief discussion on the matter within our own delegation, and having looked over the proposed changes by the delegation of Greater Cesnica, we have published a new draft that includes 'legislative immunity' in the proposal. We fully agree that such immunity is necessary for the proper functioning of a democracy, especially one with a strong parliamentary aspect. We hope that this addresses some of the concerns that have been raised around this subject, and apologise for not having included 'legislative immunity' sooner."

[Trellania]

"After some discussion with my Queen, we have decided to support both the repeal effort and this law. However, we will also be filing lawsuits against Ambassador Wayne for his conduct as a legistlator, with the lawsuit notifications to be issued to him as soon as the repeal passes. These lawsuits will, of course, be held in Trellania, with the Queen herself presiding as judge.

"Ambassador Wayne is free to file an exemption for diplomatic immunity in response to each lawsuit, which by Trellanian laws will be granted. But each filing costs 10 crowns. And we will be filing a lot of lawsuits against him. So it may be in his best interests to quit this assembly and proceed to Trellania once the lawsuits are delivered.

"We would like to thank the delegations from Daarwyth an Greater Cesnica for their patience in this matter."

[Daarwyrth]

"We would like to thank the delegations from Daarwyth an Greater Cesnica for their patience in this matter."

Jylien Barwald smiles charmingly. "Not at all an issue, my dear Dame. We are pleased that you and Her Majesty the Queen of Trellania have come to the conclusion that you are able to support both the repeal and replacement efforts of 'The Rule of Law'. Fortune of the Seas be with you in your litigation against Ambassador Wayne!"

[Daarwyrth]

Barwald: "As with the repeal draft, we would be most appreciative of new thoughts and comments on this proposal draft."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Specific law terminology is difficult to parse on a melty brain. Can I please get the "granny level" explanation point for this AND the repeal?

Why do you want criminals to be able to stop police from doing their jobs?

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Specific law terminology is difficult to parse on a melty brain. Can I please get the "granny level" explanation point for this AND the repeal?

Why do you want criminals want to be able to stop police from doing their jobs?

OOC: I presume you meant "Why do you want criminals to be able to stop police from doing their jobs?". This resolution ensures that police don't receive immunity for handing down Rodney King-style beat-downs, or discharging their weapons in a hazardous manner or tampering with evidence, and being dishonest in order to secure convictions.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Sorry, I should have specified that I wasn't talking to you. Daarwyrth was a good translator of another draft of theirs when I previously asked. Would like their explanation. (Your "explantion" doesn't explain anything.)

[Greater Cesnica]

*snip*

OOC: Sorry, I should have specified that I wasn't talking to you. Daarwyrth was a good translator of another draft of theirs when I previously asked. Would like their explanation. (Your "explantion" doesn't explain anything.)

Well, you see I'm co-authoring this alongside Daarwyrth. You must have missed where Daarwyrth included that at the bottom of the draft.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Specific law terminology is difficult to parse on a melty brain. Can I please get the "granny level" explanation point for this AND the repeal?

Why do you want criminals to be able to stop police from doing their jobs?

OOC: Police absolutely should be able to stop criminals. However, the police have a great responsibility, as they can legally use force and violence against people. This should not be stopped by any means, but there is absolutely no reason why the police should have immunity when it comes to the consequences of their actions. Even the police need to be able to be held accountable, in other words, if they use force in excess, or if they abuse their right to use force and violence, then they should answer before the law.

Some will say that this will cause the police not to be able to do their job because criminals will sue them for any damage they do to them. If this were true, police would not be able to do their job across nations across the world where the police do not have immunity. Is this the case for those countries? No. Besides, courts will know what counts as a valid case and what not.

Responsibility before the law serves as a break on the police to ensure that they won't consider themselves above the law when performing their job. Yes, criminals need to be stopped, and the police will still be able to do so. However, the police can't conduct themselves with impunity.

And yes, Greater Cesnica is a co-author of this proposal, and was intricately involved in the formation of this draft, so he knows what he is talking about

[Araraukar]

Well, you see I'm co-authoring this alongside Daarwyrth. You must have missed where Daarwyrth included that at the bottom of the draft.

And yes, Greater Cesnica is a co-author of this proposal, and had been intricately involved in the formation in this draft, so he knows what he is talking about

OOC: Daarwyrth, thank you for the proper explanation. I take it that something in the currently-in-books resolution would stop that from happening? Even if courts can decide what cases they'll hear?

And I know Cesnica's named the coauthor and probably knows what he's talking about, but not all experts are good teachers, or even good at explaining things, hence I asked you because you've been able to simplify things down to my "brain melted because summer" level before.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Daarwyrth, thank you for the proper explanation. I take it that something in the currently-in-books resolution would stop that from happening? Even if courts can decide what cases they'll hear?

OOC: Yes, the current proposal essentially gives states the opportunity to grant, for example, their police force immunity, and Greater Cesnica and I believe that this is does not embody the spirit of "the rule of law" properly. After all, all elements of a state need to be held accountable for their actions. The only immunity we felt was appropriate - and which other also brought up - was legislative immunity, namely parliamentary immunity. After all, if parliamentarians could be arrested as a means to take down political opponents, that would absolutely not create a fair and just society.

hence I asked you because you've been able to simplify things down to my "brain melted because summer" level before.

Always happy to answers questions and explain!

[Araraukar]

After all, if parliamentarians could be arrested as a means to take down political opponents, that would absolutely not create a fair and just society.

OOC: But the same happening to police (for political reasons, not because the police did anything bad) is completely fine for some reason? Your explanation for removing the protection from police makes sense, but with that explanation in mind, not removing it from legislators as well, doesn't. Why should a politician be allowed to break laws?

[Greater Cesnica]

Why should a politician be allowed to break laws?

One only needs to look at Turkey to see what could happen if parliamentary immunity is stripped away: https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/ar ... -immunity/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... rosecution

Turkey’s parliament has approved a bill to amend the constitution to strip MPs of immunity from prosecution, a move that paves the way for the trials of pro-Kurdish and other opposition legislators...

The amendment was proposed by the Justice and Development party after the president accused the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic party (HDP) of being an arm of outlawed Kurdish rebels and repeatedly called for their prosecution on terror-related charges. It puts 138 politicians, the vast majority of them from two opposition parties, at risk of prosecution.

Speaking in the Black Sea town of Rize moments before the final round of voting, the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, expressed hope for a favourable outcome, saying: “My people don’t want to see criminal deputies in parliament.”

The decision coincides with a wave of violence in Turkey’s south-east following the collapse of a more-than-two-year peace process between the state and the outlawed Kurdistan Worker’s party (PKK).

The HDP, which backs Kurdish and other minority rights, denies accusations that it is the political arm of the PKK, considered a terrorist group by Ankara and its allies. The party has urged the government to end security operations in the south-east and to resume peace efforts.

[Daarwyrth]

Why should a politician be allowed to break laws?

One only needs to look at Turkey to see what could happen if parliamentary immunity is stripped away: https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/ar ... -immunity/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... rosecution

Turkey’s parliament has approved a bill to amend the constitution to strip MPs of immunity from prosecution, a move that paves the way for the trials of pro-Kurdish and other opposition legislators...

The amendment was proposed by the Justice and Development party after the president accused the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic party (HDP) of being an arm of outlawed Kurdish rebels and repeatedly called for their prosecution on terror-related charges. It puts 138 politicians, the vast majority of them from two opposition parties, at risk of prosecution.

Speaking in the Black Sea town of Rize moments before the final round of voting, the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, expressed hope for a favourable outcome, saying: “My people don’t want to see criminal deputies in parliament.”

The decision coincides with a wave of violence in Turkey’s south-east following the collapse of a more-than-two-year peace process between the state and the outlawed Kurdistan Worker’s party (PKK).

The HDP, which backs Kurdish and other minority rights, denies accusations that it is the political arm of the PKK, considered a terrorist group by Ankara and its allies. The party has urged the government to end security operations in the south-east and to resume peace efforts.

OOC: Yes, quite so! It's not to allow politicians from breaking the law, but it's to ensure that regimes don't essentially remove their parliament by simply arresting everyone. Legislators don't get immunity for everything, for example, if they are caught murdering someone they will be arrested and tried. As the text specifies they only have immunity for legitimate legislative actions.

[Old Hope]

Establishes that all private and public individuals, officials, entities, and institutions, as well as the state itself and its administrative and political subdivisions, are to be held accountable for the acts and decisions that have been made during the employ, tenure, appointment or existence of the aforementioned, within the confines of the established law of member nations, and previously passed World Assembly resolutions,

This is STILL lacking an attibution. Right now, we could hold your leader accountable for ... let's say... a murder that happened in a third nation... because that act clearly happened during their tenure, if this would pass.

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed to this legislation which would drive a stake through the heart of the principle of vicarious liability in respect of state employees. It is in nobody's interest for employees rather than employers to be held accountable for all mistakes in all circumstances.

"The existing law on this is just fine and should be left alone."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed to this legislation which would drive a stake through the heart of the principle of vicarious liability in respect of state employees. It is in nobody's interest for employees rather than employers to be held accountable for all mistakes in all circumstances.

"The existing law on this is just fine and should be left alone."

Don't we also have respondeat superior?

[Daarwyrth]

Barwald, Press Secretary: "In tandem with the repeal of GAR #374, both our delegations also would like to ask for more feedback and commentary to improve or alter the current draft of the replacement."

[Greater Cesnica]

"Our delegation has submitted the repeal draft that will enable this superior replacement to go ahead and be submitted."

OOC: plz approve https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1628016163

[Tinhampton]

Smith: I just have one small question - what will the effect of this proposal be on so-called Good Samaritan Laws, of the kind that this body has previously enacted through Assistance Givers Protection and its predecessor has similarly passed?
Lydia Anderson, Assistant to D-A Smith: Assitance...

[Greater Cesnica]

Smith: I just have one small question - what will the effect of this proposal be on so-called Good Samaritan Laws, of the kind that this body has previously enacted through Assistance Givers Protection and its predecessor has similarly passed?
Lydia Anderson, Assistant to D-A Smith: Assitance...

"In any such member states which retain Good Samaritan Laws, there would be no impact."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Section two appears to be quite optional - "within the confines of the established law of member nations".

4b really makes it all sort of pointless.

Also, what potential contradiction is anticipated in section two "within the confines of ... previously passed World Assembly resolutions"?

Edit: Also this bit in the preamble is meaningless: "and will ward off both arbitrary or discriminatory punishment". This proposal does nothing of the sort.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Section two appears to be quite optional - "within the confines of the established law of member nations".

4b really makes it all sort of pointless.

Also, what potential contradiction is anticipated in section two "within the confines of ... previously passed World Assembly resolutions"?

Edit: Also this bit in the preamble is meaningless: "and will ward off both arbitrary or discriminatory punishment". This proposal does nothing of the sort.

OOC: Daarwyrth is currently on LOA due to a stomach bug, but I will pass this on to him. I agree that Section two should be reworded. I have been deliberating about whether to include something like 4(b) or not.