NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal: "The Rule Of Law"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

[PASSED] Repeal: "The Rule Of Law"

Postby Greater Cesnica » Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:46 pm

Replacement: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=506235
The General Assembly,

Recognizing that GAR #374 “The Rule Of Law is a pivotal piece of legislation that upholds the concept of there being a “Rule of Law” that no entity in society is above, not even government institutions or the socioeconomic elite in a given nation,

Noting, however, that GAR #374 is fatally flawed due to Article 2(a), which “Declares that reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where... some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity…”,

Unconvinced that any hazard, difficulty, or misplaced benefit of the doubt renders any extent of pre-determined or non-fact-based immunity "necessary" for government officials, other than in regards to legislative immunity,

Unsettled by the prospect that those individuals and institutions entrusted with the right and ability to use violence and force against civilian populations in the interest of keeping law and order, such as in the form of law enforcement forces, could be exempted from liability and responsibility for their actions; which in turn would breed an unjust and false sense of impunity in the abuse of their exclusive right to administer violence and force,

Believing that, with the exception of legislative immunity, it is preferable to ensure all government officials and institutions are answerable to the law and civil action for the consequences of actions taken in their respective capacities, regardless of their position or function as government officials and institutions, rather than to allow incompetence and malice from these entities to go unchecked,

Resolved that a replacement resolution is needed to truly enshrine the spirit of GAR #374 in law whilst eradicating baseless immunity for government officials and institutions,

Hereby repeals GAR #374 “The Rule Of Law”.

Co-authored with Daarwyrth.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:11 pm, edited 9 times in total.
Reason: Question put and agreed to.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:47 pm

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that GAR #374 “The Rule Of Law is a pivotal piece of legislation that upholds the concept of there being a “Rule of Law” that no entity in a society is above, not even government institutions or the socioeconomic elite in a given nation,

Noting, however, that GAR #374 is fatally flawed due to Article 2(a), which “Declares that reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where... some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity…”,

Unsettled by the prospect that those individuals and institutions entrusted with the right and ability to use violence and force against civilian populations in the interest of keeping law and order, such as in the form of law enforcement forces, could be exempted from liability and responsibility for their actions; which in turn would breed an unjust and false sense of impunity in the abuse of their exclusive right to administer violence and force,

Believing that it is far more superior to ensure all government officials and institutions are answerable to the law for the consequences of actions taken in their respective capacities, regardless of their position or function as government officials and institutions, rather than to allow incompetence and malice from these entities to go unchecked on the basis of preventing frivolous civil action,

Resolved that a replacement resolution is needed to truly enshrine the spirit of GAR #374 in law whilst eradicating baseless immunity for government officials and institutions,

Hereby repeals GAR #500 “Rule Of Law”.

Co-authored with Daarwyrth
Draft created.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that GAR #374 “The Rule Of Law is a pivotal piece of legislation that upholds the concept of there being a “Rule of Law” that no entity in society is above, not even government institutions or the socioeconomic elite in a given nation,

Noting, however, that GAR #374 is fatally flawed due to Article 2(a), which “Declares that reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where... some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity…”,

Unconvinced that any hazard, difficulty, or misplaced benefit of the doubt renders any extent of pre-determined or non-fact-based immunity "necessary" for government officials, other than in regards to legislative immunity,

Unsettled by the prospect that those individuals and institutions entrusted with the right and ability to use violence and force against civilian populations in the interest of keeping law and order, such as in the form of law enforcement forces, could be exempted from liability and responsibility for their actions; which in turn would breed an unjust and false sense of impunity in the abuse of their exclusive right to administer violence and force,

Believing that, with the exception of legislative immunity, it is better to ensure all government officials and institutions are answerable to the law for the consequences of actions taken in their respective capacities, regardless of their position or function as government officials and institutions, rather than to allow incompetence and malice from these entities to go unchecked,

Resolved that a replacement resolution is needed to truly enshrine the spirit of GAR #374 in law whilst eradicating baseless immunity for government officials and institutions,

Hereby repeals GAR #374 “Rule Of Law”.

Co-authored with Daarwyrth.
Expanded hook to eliminate honest mistake, and to clarify position.
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:48 pm

"And yes, as has been noted in the draft, the delegations of Daarwyth and Greater Cesnica will be working on a replacement."

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:50 pm

Jylien Barwald, Press Secretary of the Daarwyrthian delegation: "It has been an absolute pleasure to work with the delegation from Greater Cesnica on this draft, and we're indeed looking forward to our continued collaboration on the replacement of our target of repeal."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Current year: 2022 CE | Monarch: Queen Demi Maria I | Prime Minister: Dame Maria vyn Nysen | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-modern tech
List of Authored Writings | Factbook on Daarwyrth | Factbook on Queen Demi Maria I | Royal House of Zylkoven | Political Parties | Daarwyrth's WA Mission | Diplomatic Programme | Major Businesses
Played nations
  • Daarwyrth
  • Great Robertia
  • Uylensted
Who am I?
  • 26 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10720
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:56 pm

Greater Cesnica and Daarwyrth wrote:Hereby repeals GAR #500 “Rule Of Law”.

All hail Sciongrad, time traveller extraordinaire! :bow:

Greater Cesnica and Daarwyrth wrote:GAR #374 is fatally flawed due to Article 2(a), [under which] those individuals and institutions entrusted with the right and ability to use violence and force against civilian populations in the interest of keeping law and order, such as in the form of law enforcement forces, could be exempted from liability and responsibility for their actions; which in turn would breed an unjust and false sense of impunity in the abuse of their exclusive right to administer violence and force

Is it your understanding that Article g of LEO Force Restrictions would constitute contradiction of GA#374 while the latter remains in force, or have you started drafting this repeal for other, separate reasons?
Last edited by Tinhampton on Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16801
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:03 pm

"Opposed. While qualified immunity may be abused by overzealous law enforcement, opening government employees to lawsuits in their capacity as individuals for acts committed while working for the government will disincentivize government work. Imagine the difficulty of finding surveyors if each runs the risk of being sued for trespass for a minor error? Of firefighters for damage to property for breaking down a doorway to a home with a malfunctioning alarm? Politicians for passing a law resulting in a taking of private land? Qualified immunity does not protect the government from liability for the actions of its agents and employees. It does ensure that private citizens cannot bar government employees from doing their jobs with petty lawsuits."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11585
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:05 pm

I don't buy that qualified immunity is "necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity". Police existed and worked before qualified immunity, they exist and work in countries not called the United States of America (most of which incidentally don't have qualified immunity), they will exist and work after a hypothetical repeal of qualified immunity. Insofar as the existence of police is wholly unrelated to qualified immunity's existence, it cannot be that it is necessary.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:14 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Is it your understanding that Article g of LEO Force Restrictions would constitute contradiction of GA#374 while the latter remains in force?

OOC: Yes.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. While qualified immunity may be abused by overzealous law enforcement, opening government employees to lawsuits in their capacity as individuals for acts committed while working for the government will disincentivize government work. Imagine the difficulty of finding surveyors if each runs the risk of being sued for trespass for a minor error? Of firefighters for damage to property for breaking down a doorway to a home with a malfunctioning alarm? Politicians for passing a law resulting in a taking of private land? Qualified immunity does not protect the government from liability for the actions of its agents and employees. It does ensure that private citizens cannot bar government employees from doing their jobs with petty lawsuits."

"Somehow, I doubt that, Ambassador. I believe, as most people do, that government agents and agencies should be held to a higher standard than that imposed on the average person. Such higher standards are apparent throughout the civilized world, and those nations do not have their agents and agencies hide behind the veil of qualified immunity. I haven't heard of a shortage of firefighters, surveyors, or politicians in those jurisdictions due to their lack of qualified immunity. Furthermore, there are innumerable examples of qualified immunity being used by government agents and government agencies as a means to escape liability for gross incompetence, and at times even malice- which is possible thanks to these agents and agencies having the capacity to set the narrative and twist the facts to their advantage after the fact."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't buy that qualified immunity is "necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity". Police existed and worked before qualified immunity, they exist and work in countries not called the United States of America (most of which incidentally don't have qualified immunity), they will exist and work after a hypothetical repeal of qualified immunity. Insofar as the existence of police is wholly unrelated to qualified immunity's existence, it cannot be that it is necessary.

OOC: The "reasonable" and "good faith" qualifiers before the "necessary" part muddles things up. I do agree with you when you say that qualified immunity isn't necessary, absolutely. But that's not the standard ultimately being used in the target resolution. Rather, that standard is what member states, through the nebulous lenses of reasonability and good faith, deem to be necessary.
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Trellania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Jun 07, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Trellania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:50 pm

Dame Allania and her unnamed, dark-haired assistant enter the room, this time sans scrolls and bird. They wander over to read the resolution, then stand and look to each other a moment. Both wander off to a back corner, where they can be seen animately arguing, though what they are saying cannot be heard. Finally Dame Allania pulls her cell phone out of her top and the pair turn to leave, heading out the door as the knight whispers into the phone.

Oddly, a few minutes later Dame Allania enters from the door on the complete opposite side of the room from where she left, runs across the room, and back out the door she left through the first time. Anyone who gets close can hear animated but indistinct arguing, and it almost sounds like Dame Allania is arguing with herself at times.

Finally, after a few minutes, the dark-haired assistant enters alone.

"We agree with Bell in this matter and do not support this repeal."

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:01 pm

Trellania wrote:Finally, after a few minutes, the dark-haired assistant enters alone.

"We agree with Bell in this matter and do not support this repeal."

"Thank you for letting us know, sir."

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:03 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:"Somehow, I doubt that, Ambassador. I believe, as most people do, that government agents and agencies should be held to a higher standard than that imposed on the average person. Such higher standards are apparent throughout the civilized world, and those nations do not have their agents and agencies hide behind the veil of qualified immunity. I haven't heard of a shortage of firefighters, surveyors, or politicians in those jurisdictions due to their lack of qualified immunity. Furthermore, there are innumerable examples of qualified immunity being used by government agents and government agencies as a means to escape liability for gross incompetence, and at times even malice- which is possible thanks to these agents and agencies having the capacity to set the narrative and twist the facts to their advantage after the fact."

Dame Maria vyn Nysen, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "Our delegation absolutely agrees with the statements put forward by the delegation from Greater Cesnica. Those who exercise power are to be held by a higher standard, as they occupy leadership positions in society, as well as roles of example. It cannot be so that those individuals would be exempted from accountability and responsibility before the law, as this opens too wide a door for the potential misuse of that immunity, or the false and unjust justification of such. All are supposed to be accountable before the law, and if the rule of law is to manifest itself in its truest form, when no government official or institution can enjoy impunity."

OOC: There are plenty of countries across the globe where there is no qualified immunity, and the system of government (including services such as firefighters, police etc etc) functions fine, with enough people feeling incentivised to be employed there. I don't buy the vision that qualified immunity is necessary. I have never seen qualified immunity in the Netherlands, and everything seems to be running just fine without it. Everyone should be accountable in the face of the law, the institutions making and executing the laws as well as the state included :)
Last edited by Daarwyrth on Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Current year: 2022 CE | Monarch: Queen Demi Maria I | Prime Minister: Dame Maria vyn Nysen | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-modern tech
List of Authored Writings | Factbook on Daarwyrth | Factbook on Queen Demi Maria I | Royal House of Zylkoven | Political Parties | Daarwyrth's WA Mission | Diplomatic Programme | Major Businesses
Played nations
  • Daarwyrth
  • Great Robertia
  • Uylensted
Who am I?
  • 26 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

User avatar
Trellania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Jun 07, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Trellania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:07 pm

OOC: The only reason Trellania doesn't support the repeal is they are an absolute monarchy. The reigning monarch has absolute immunity, and her representatives rely on qualified immunity to enforce laws against people who are higher ranked than they are.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Senator
 
Posts: 3544
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:55 pm

I see very little reason for this repeal and replace. Opposed.
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:30 pm

Wayneactia wrote:I see very little reason for this repeal and replace. Opposed.

OOC: You don't consider the ability of a government official to be exempted from any form of responsibility or liability as dangerous? To essentially operate without breaks, which are necessary to ensure that power is not abused? Think of law enforcement, they have the exclusive and legal right to use violence and force against civilians to maintain law and order. There has to be a sense of responsibility and liability for the use of that right, otherwise law enforcement may conduct itself with impunity. That is not a fair and just society, nor does it truly embody the rule of law. If the rule of law is to be properly implemented, everyone - the state included - must be answerable to the law.
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Current year: 2022 CE | Monarch: Queen Demi Maria I | Prime Minister: Dame Maria vyn Nysen | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-modern tech
List of Authored Writings | Factbook on Daarwyrth | Factbook on Queen Demi Maria I | Royal House of Zylkoven | Political Parties | Daarwyrth's WA Mission | Diplomatic Programme | Major Businesses
Played nations
  • Daarwyrth
  • Great Robertia
  • Uylensted
Who am I?
  • 26 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

User avatar
Trellania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Jun 07, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Trellania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:14 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:I see very little reason for this repeal and replace. Opposed.

OOC: You don't consider the ability of a government official to be exempted from any form of responsibility or liability as dangerous? To essentially operate without breaks, which are necessary to ensure that power is not abused? Think of law enforcement, they have the exclusive and legal right to use violence and force against civilians to maintain law and order. There has to be a sense of responsibility and liability for the use of that right, otherwise law enforcement may conduct itself with impunity. That is not a fair and just society, nor does it truly embody the rule of law. If the rule of law is to be properly implemented, everyone - the state included - must be answerable to the law.


OOC: Some of the member nations are monarchies, dictatorships, or dealing with governments with multiple political parties where you cannot trust all of the parties to play fairly. To a degree, a certain amount of immunity at the highest levels of government does ensure an amount of fair play. This was enough of an issue in real life to inform how some nations structured their governments.

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:18 pm

Trellania wrote:OOC: Some of the member nations are monarchies, dictatorships, or dealing with governments with multiple political parties where you cannot trust all of the parties to play fairly. To a degree, a certain amount of immunity at the highest levels of government does ensure an amount of fair play. This was enough of an issue in real life to inform how some nations structured their governments.

OOC: From what I have seen qualified immunity isn't that common or widespread as people from the USA seem to think. Many nations in Europe don't have qualified immunity. Heck, here in the Netherlands there was even a criminal case for discriminatory remarks against a Parliamentarian. No one should be immune to the working of the law, and since there's no major collapse of the system of government in the Netherlands without qualified immunity, then it can surely also function in other nations :)
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Current year: 2022 CE | Monarch: Queen Demi Maria I | Prime Minister: Dame Maria vyn Nysen | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-modern tech
List of Authored Writings | Factbook on Daarwyrth | Factbook on Queen Demi Maria I | Royal House of Zylkoven | Political Parties | Daarwyrth's WA Mission | Diplomatic Programme | Major Businesses
Played nations
  • Daarwyrth
  • Great Robertia
  • Uylensted
Who am I?
  • 26 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10720
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:20 pm

parliamentary privilege tho :flushed:
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Trellania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 188
Founded: Jun 07, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Trellania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:37 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: From what I have seen qualified immunity isn't that common or widespread as people from the USA seem to think. Many nations in Europe don't have qualified immunity. Heck, here in the Netherlands there was even a criminal case for discriminatory remarks against a Parliamentarian. No one should be immune to the working of the law, and since there's no major collapse of the system of government in the Netherlands without qualified immunity, then it can surely also function in other nations :)


OOC: It's qualified immunity for police that is uncommon outside of the U.S. It is still maintained on the government level, typically called legislative immunity or parliamentary immunity and often with additional (or sometimes limited to) protection against arrest. Netherlands uses a limited form of it for communications.

It's important to note that qualified immunity and legislative immunity are effectively variations of the same mechanism, since both originate in the same logic and have almost the same exact goal in mind. Notably, there's also a good reason why you typically don't want police to have this, but that's a slightly different issue from if you want government officials to have it.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11585
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:01 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I don't buy that qualified immunity is "necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity". Police existed and worked before qualified immunity, they exist and work in countries not called the United States of America (most of which incidentally don't have qualified immunity), they will exist and work after a hypothetical repeal of qualified immunity. Insofar as the existence of police is wholly unrelated to qualified immunity's existence, it cannot be that it is necessary.

OOC: The "reasonable" and "good faith" qualifiers before the "necessary" part muddles things up. I do agree with you when you say that qualified immunity isn't necessary, absolutely. But that's not the standard ultimately being used in the target resolution. Rather, that standard is what member states, through the nebulous lenses of reasonability and good faith, deem to be necessary.

It really doesn't. It says "reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where ... some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity". "Reasonable" and "good faith" do not obscure or change the test applied, which is that some form of immunity be "necessary".

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:11 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: The "reasonable" and "good faith" qualifiers before the "necessary" part muddles things up. I do agree with you when you say that qualified immunity isn't necessary, absolutely. But that's not the standard ultimately being used in the target resolution. Rather, that standard is what member states, through the nebulous lenses of reasonability and good faith, deem to be necessary.

It really doesn't. It says "reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where ... some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity". "Reasonable" and "good faith" do not obscure or change the test applied, which is that some form of immunity be "necessary".

OOC: Alright, is "necessary" not a subjective qualifier then? I can certainly see a nation finding it "necessary" to extend such immunity beyond the chambers of the legislature. I know that you find it absurd that police officers and organizations require qualified immunity- as do I. But many other nations and organizations see things differently.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11585
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:15 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It really doesn't. It says "reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where ... some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity". "Reasonable" and "good faith" do not obscure or change the test applied, which is that some form of immunity be "necessary".

OOC: Alright, is "necessary" not a subjective qualifier then? I can certainly see a nation finding it "necessary" to extend such immunity beyond the chambers of the legislature. I know that you find it absurd that police officers and organizations require qualified immunity- as do I. But many other nations and organizations see things differently.

If something is "necessary", it is a sine qua non. If it is necessary, you literally cannot do it unless you have it. The police must have the power to arrest people. They must have the ability to execute search warrants. Without the power of arrest people, they cannot stop any crimes. Without the power to execute search warrants, they cannot investigate anyone for criminal activity (assuming search warrants are required; if otherwise, at least power to conduct a search). If you are playing a Bach violin concerto, you need a bow. It is necessary. Having a second bow is not.

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Wayneactia
Senator
 
Posts: 3544
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:33 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Trellania wrote:OOC: Some of the member nations are monarchies, dictatorships, or dealing with governments with multiple political parties where you cannot trust all of the parties to play fairly. To a degree, a certain amount of immunity at the highest levels of government does ensure an amount of fair play. This was enough of an issue in real life to inform how some nations structured their governments.

OOC: From what I have seen qualified immunity isn't that common or widespread as people from the USA seem to think. Many nations in Europe don't have qualified immunity. Heck, here in the Netherlands there was even a criminal case for discriminatory remarks against a Parliamentarian. No one should be immune to the working of the law, and since there's no major collapse of the system of government in the Netherlands without qualified immunity, then it can surely also function in other nations :)

In Canada the police have fully qualified immunity that can only be waived by the Crown. We don't have mass outbreaks of police violence here. Most commonwealth nations are the same. The argument remains unconvincing.
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:37 pm

Wayneactia wrote:
Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: From what I have seen qualified immunity isn't that common or widespread as people from the USA seem to think. Many nations in Europe don't have qualified immunity. Heck, here in the Netherlands there was even a criminal case for discriminatory remarks against a Parliamentarian. No one should be immune to the working of the law, and since there's no major collapse of the system of government in the Netherlands without qualified immunity, then it can surely also function in other nations :)

We don't have mass outbreaks of police violence here.

OOC: Except against natives and black people.
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8244
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:54 am

"We have expanded our hook in this repeal to eliminate any possible illegality, and also to clarify our contention with Article 2(a) of the target resolution."

User avatar
Daarwyrth
Minister
 
Posts: 2117
Founded: Jul 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Daarwyrth » Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:50 am

Barwald: "I believe I speak for both the delegation of Greater Cesnica and our own when I say that any new feedback and commentary would be most welcome."
The Royal State of Daarwyrth

Current year: 2022 CE | Monarch: Queen Demi Maria I | Prime Minister: Dame Maria vyn Nysen | Capital: Daarsted | Government type: Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy | Technology level: Post-modern tech
List of Authored Writings | Factbook on Daarwyrth | Factbook on Queen Demi Maria I | Royal House of Zylkoven | Political Parties | Daarwyrth's WA Mission | Diplomatic Programme | Major Businesses
Played nations
  • Daarwyrth
  • Great Robertia
  • Uylensted
Who am I?
  • 26 years old male
  • Dutch with Polish roots
  • English literature major
  • Ex-religious gay leftist

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads