[Repeal] The Civil Code for blah blah blah

[Consular]

I think we should repeal and remove the The Civil Code for Uniform Justice and Order in the West Pacific.

 

The Civil Code for Uniform Justice and Order in the West Pacific

Effective 12 December, 2014

 

The offenses listed below are punishable by banishment to the realms outlying the vast region of The West Pacific:

 

-- Civil Disobedience

 

1001: Intent to subvert the Delegate of The West Pacific.

 

1002: Frequent posts of an inappropriate subject.

 

1003: Harassment of a fellow West Pacifican either in public or by telegram.

 

1004: Unauthorized use of another nation's flag or other details as your own, with the intent to deceive.

 

1005: Objectionable nation name, flag, or motto.

 

 

--Political Accountability

 

2001: Action against the policies of The West Pacific Delegate.

 

2002: Failure to become aligned with the Delegate.

 

 

--Treason

 

0001: Seeking more endorsements than the Delegate mandated limit.

 

0002: Being a puppet of a banned nation.

 

0003: Assisting those seeking more than endorsements than the Delegate mandated limit.

 

0004: Belonging to a subversive organization.

 

1. I think the political accountability section actually goes completely against the spirit of The West Pacific.

 

2. Treason and Civil Disobedience are covered by Bill of Rights and Obligations, though in deliberately vaguer terms, which is not a bad thing. The Delegate already has discretion to deal with these matters. We basically passed a piece of useless legislation in an area that our own Bill of Rights and Obligations already covers. And by we I mean someone else, I certainly did not vote for this.

 

3. I really really don't think we need a carbon copy of the Pacific's civil code, thanks.

[Elegarth]

Discussion should be open for no less than one week on this, as per suggestions from current members.

[Consular]

Yup, I welcome thoughts.

[Cormac]

I think we should repeal and remove the The Civil Code for Uniform Justice and Order in the West Pacific.

 

 

1. I think the political accountability section actually goes completely against the spirit of The West Pacific.

 

2. Treason and Civil Disobedience are covered by Bill of Rights and Obligations, though in deliberately vaguer terms, which is not a bad thing. The Delegate already has discretion to deal with these matters. We basically passed a piece of useless legislation in an area that our own Bill of Rights and Obligations already covers. And by we I mean someone else, I certainly did not vote for this.

I agree with these two points, so I'm in favor of repeal as well.

[That Called the Vlagh]

The primary impetus for the Civil Code here in the west was to give the Judicial branch something to do, and to assist the Delegate with these matters, even if she already has discretion for dealing with them.

 

But, seeing as the Judicial branch has sat inactive since the passing of this as the current government could not or would not appoint someone to oversee and organize it, I can see how it may not be useful.

 

That said, the Delegate supported the passing of this legislation but if it is not beneficial to her operation of the region then I have no objection to its repeal.  The origins are not particularly relevant to this discussion and any nation's personal bias towards another region seems to be unnecessary (and also 'completely against the spirit of The West Pacific' *rollseyes*).  One could also state that the 'spirit' of TWP is a fluid thing that is dependent upon the leanings of the Delegate nation.  There have been several governmental entities within this region (the current one included) that are very similar to that within The Pacific.

[Llamas]

I'm in favor of this repeal. I hardly see anything this law's good for, ATM.

[Westwind]

 

But, seeing as the Judicial branch has sat inactive since the passing of this as the current government could not or would not appoint someone to oversee and organize it, I can see how it may not be useful.

 

 

I would note that the Delegate has indeed appointed Siberian Districts as Chief Justice.  However, SD hasn't done a single thing since, and only logs on ingame infrequently.  I would suggest the first step is to replace him, then the Judiciary can become active.

 

I offer my service to region for the position of Chief Justice if it so wishes.  I have been extremely disappointed in the performance of prior CJ's.

 

1. I think the political accountability section actually goes completely against the spirit of The West Pacific.

 

 

This is easily argued to be true, given the nature of the BIll of Rights and Obligations that provides all nations the right to endorse or not endorse the Delegate.  Actions against the policies of the Delegate could be construed to include withdrawl of endorsement, but that is a protected act.

 

However, I would also argue that it is the HGA's responsibility to define the law for the Judiciary.

 

The primary purpose of the Judiciary will be to enforce the laws of the region, as created by the Government.

 

 

Thus there needs to be a repository, or Codex, or Civil Code to provide the mandated guidance of the HGA.

[Consular]

The primary impetus for the Civil Code here in the west was to give the Judicial branch something to do, and to assist the Delegate with these matters, even if she already has discretion for dealing with them.

 

But, seeing as the Judicial branch has sat inactive since the passing of this as the current government could not or would not appoint someone to oversee and organize it, I can see how it may not be useful.

 

That said, the Delegate supported the passing of this legislation but if it is not beneficial to her operation of the region then I have no objection to its repeal.  The origins are not particularly relevant to this discussion and any nation's personal bias towards another region seems to be unnecessary (and also 'completely against the spirit of The West Pacific' *rollseyes*).  One could also state that the 'spirit' of TWP is a fluid thing that is dependent upon the leanings of the Delegate nation.  There have been several governmental entities within this region (the current one included) that are very similar to that within The Pacific.

 

The origins are relevant, imo. That point was not made out of any bias against the Pacific, merely a thought that we should be able to come up with our own approach, rather than blanket copying someone elses. And indeed, we have our own approach; which is the Bill of Rights and Obligations. TWP may be very close to TP, but they are fundamentally different communities and have different atmospheres. Regardless, this was not the primary argument for repeal, more of a footnote.

 

As Westwind pointed out, it is in fact against the spirit of TWP. That section could be construed very widely, in the sense that anything not supporting the Delegate is a crime. Traditionally, at least in the past couple years, not agreeing with the Delegate has not been a crime here. Indeed, the Bill of Rights protects such. You can save the patronising eye rolls, buddy.

[That Called the Vlagh]

The origins are relevant, imo. That point was not made out of any bias against the Pacific, merely a thought that we should be able to come up with our own approach, rather than blanket copying someone elses. And indeed, we have our own approach; which is the Bill of Rights and Obligations. TWP may be very close to TP, but they are fundamentally different communities and have different atmospheres. Regardless, this was not the primary argument for repeal, more of a footnote.

 

As Westwind pointed out, it is in fact against the spirit of TWP. That section could be construed very widely, in the sense that anything not supporting the Delegate is a crime. Traditionally, at least in the past couple years, not agreeing with the Delegate has not been a crime here. Indeed, the Bill of Rights protects such. You can save the patronising eye rolls, buddy.

Actually, I believe you misunderstood WW's point.  He was stating that it could be argued in such a fashion but that the mechanics of a system (like the Civil Code) are necessary for the enforcement of the law of the HGA.  Again, it seems that you have allowed personal bias to cloud your judgement on this issue for whatever reason.  The origins are not relevant in that they are just basic laws that countless regions have manipulated to their own needs over the past 11+ years.  The Civil Code for TWP isn't even the same as the current Civil Code for The Pacific.  They have common origins but that is true for a lot of regions and a lot of law structures.

 

It would be better to allow the Judiciary the opportunity to function within the existent law than repeal the law and start over with nothing.  A baby and bathwater analogy comes to mind.

 

Wouldn't it be simpler to seek an adjustment of the existing law (if you feel so strongly about the political accountability section) instead of a repeal altogether?  Or to at least provide an alternative that is grounded in more of an enforcement category for the Judiciary relying on the Bill of Rights and Obligations?

 

My patronizing is aimed at what I see as a blanket knee-jerk reaction to someone popping in spouting about 'values' and 'spirit' while not actually contributing to the debates and conversations that led to this point.  It isn't aimed at you as an individual, just what I believe to be a reactionary mentality that could better serve the community by seeking more than 'we don't want to be like TP so lets remove X'.

[Westwind]

He was stating that it could be argued in such a fashion but that the mechanics of a system (like the Civil Code) are necessary for the enforcement of the law of the HGA.  

 

That is true, which is why I quoted from the Judiciary Act:

 

Law Enforcement: The primary purpose of the Judiciary will be to enforce the laws of the region, as created by the Government. ....

 

 

The Judiciary can only enforce those laws the HGA has created.  Removing the Civil Code would leave us with only the BIll of Rights and Obligations, which are not a Codex of law but rather establish the enumerated rights along with obligations that merely reflect game mechanics and rules.  It does nothing regarding issues the HGA might find a need for enforcement and/or Judicial action that the community and government feels it needs.  Thus I support a Civil Code or Codex of Law.

 

That being the case, it is still a valid point that political accountability in the Civil Code can be construed to conflict with the Bill or Rights.  I would however expect, that any Judiciary would give the Bill of Rights and Obligations as the higher authority than the Civil Code as both a matter of Rights and a matter of precedence.

[Elegarth]

As per this declaration:

http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1236-standard-procedures-of-the-regional-assembly-speaker-declaration/

This proposal is considered to be right now in the period of informal discussion.

[Consular]

I'm not sure what I've done to merit your generally hostile tone Vlagh. You seem to be making a lot of almost personal attacks, and I've no idea why. This was not a kneejerk reaction, I've thought the civil code has no purpose for a while now, and only just got to trying to repeal it. I'm also not sure what you're grounding your wild accusations of personal bias on. Who am I biased against? How it is 'bias' for me to dislike a piece of legislation. You're dogmatically focusing on point 3 of my argument, which as I've already stated was but an aside. The simple fact is I feel everything in the code is always covered by the long established Bill of Rights and Obligations. I'm also not the only one who thinks this. I feel like you've just become oddly hostile because I suggested we shouldn't copy the Pacific, as if I was somehow insulting the Pacific when I said that, which I actually was not. You also took the opportunity to snipe at me in the Speaker's proposed announcement thread over the same issue, which imo was rather immature. So maybe, you know, calm the farm and be less of a jerk bro. I also didn't misunderstand WW, I was just saying that how he said it could be construed as clashing was indeed how I saw it, though I may have expressed myself poorly there. I'm also not sure what's stopping the Judiciary from enforcing the Bill of Obligations. It appropriately reflects the authority of the Delegate to enforce regional order. What other laws do we need in a code of laws that aren't covered by it?

[Llamas]

Thus I support a Civil Code or Codex of Law.

This is completely and absolutely correct. We need a Civil Code. Without one, there's nothing for our Judiciary to do, and we would not be able to punish anybody without having violated the principle of nulla poena sine lege, no penalty without a law.

 

However, I don't think our law code does a good job. There's some glaring holes; e.g., there's no law preventing coups from taking place if a guardian does it because they haven't violated the endo cap, "Subversive organizations" are not defined, and treason can be construed to include a wide variety of acts such as constructive criticism of the government.

 

As such, I would propose repealing this and replacing it with something more up-to-date, specific, and generally improved upon compared to the old code.

[Westwind]

There's some glaring holes; e.g., there's no law preventing coups from taking place if a guardian does it because they haven't violated the endo cap,

 

 

Under current law, the HGA has the right to call a rebellion against the sitting Delegate.  This is the mechanism for dealing with an unwanted "coup".  A judiciary can do nothing about it, it's only talk on a forum. So there's no point in addressing that in Civil Code.  Only ingame actions by WA nations inregion can have an impact in that situation.

 

This is why we acknowledge the Game given rights of the Delegate, whoever that may be.  Max gave the Delegate those authorities, and defined the means to it by endorsement....not this forum community, nor this government.  The game gives those authorities.  Those that fail to recognize this reality, end in a region of chaos and conflict.

[That Called the Vlagh]

I'm not sure what I've done to merit your generally hostile tone Vlagh. You seem to be making a lot of almost personal attacks, and I've no idea why. This was not a kneejerk reaction, I've thought the civil code has no purpose for a while now, and only just got to trying to repeal it. I'm also not sure what you're grounding your wild accusations of personal bias on. Who am I biased against? How it is 'bias' for me to dislike a piece of legislation. You're dogmatically focusing on point 3 of my argument, which as I've already stated was but an aside. The simple fact is I feel everything in the code is always covered by the long established Bill of Rights and Obligations. I'm also not the only one who thinks this. I feel like you've just become oddly hostile because I suggested we shouldn't copy the Pacific, as if I was somehow insulting the Pacific when I said that, which I actually was not. You also took the opportunity to snipe at me in the Speaker's proposed announcement thread over the same issue, which imo was rather immature. So maybe, you know, calm the farm and be less of a jerk bro. I also didn't misunderstand WW, I was just saying that how he said it could be construed as clashing was indeed how I saw it, though I may have expressed myself poorly there. I'm also not sure what's stopping the Judiciary from enforcing the Bill of Obligations. It appropriately reflects the authority of the Delegate to enforce regional order. What other laws do we need in a code of laws that aren't covered by it?

I am a jerk, ask around.

 

Regardless, I have addressed your other points and stand by my comments.  When I initially stated that the origins were immaterial you made a point to clarify that you believe they are very relevant, therefore I called you a hypocrite in the Speaker discussion thread.  Sorry if that was not clear.  To make certain it is, I think you are a hypocrite.  The end.  Your initial comments on the matter state all that need to be stated on my perception of bias.  You are flippant and sarcastic in your initial post, making your 'bias' clear to me.  You also note that you didn't vote on the matter. Well, honestly, tough shit.  You should have been more vocal in the discussion, that is how democratic processes work.

 

But, it really has nothing to do with your evident bias.  You claim that such does not exist, which is fine, but it seems to fly in the face of the aforementioned hypocrisy, just saying.  It has to do with your point that our law should not come from somewhere else and your point that you disagree with the political accountability section of the Civil Code.   I therefore suggested that instead of just throwing the whole thing out you (since this is your proposal) provide an alternative or even consider an amendment to the objectionable section(s).  

 

The Judiciary has not been led.  It has not had a proper amount of time to see if this sort of system could even work.  Your primary arguments are that one section may (although that isn't for you or I to decide individually) conflict with the Bill of Rights and that it is conceivably copied from elsewhere.  I think the second point should be moot, because frankly, who gives a damn if it is copied from elsewhere?  As I have said, lots of laws in lots of regions are based upon other regions.  And I have acknowledged that your first point may have merit but that your response to it is over the top.  There is no logical reason to remove the entire Civil Code because of a possible conflict within one section when it could be amended. 

 

My apologies if you believe I have been attacking you personally.  I have not.  I do not believe anything I have stated is a personal attack outside of what you yourself have displayed.  If you do one thing in this thread and then don't hold the same standard elsewhere then you are a hypocrite.  That is the definition.

This is completely and absolutely correct. We need a Civil Code. Without one, there's nothing for our Judiciary to do, and we would not be able to punish anybody without having violated the principle of nulla poena sine lege, no penalty without a law.

 

However, I don't think our law code does a good job. There's some glaring holes; e.g., there's no law preventing coups from taking place if a guardian does it because they haven't violated the endo cap, "Subversive organizations" are not defined, and treason can be construed to include a wide variety of acts such as constructive criticism of the government.

 

As such, I would propose repealing this and replacing it with something more up-to-date, specific, and generally improved upon compared to the old code.

My only objection is that a proposal for the replacement should be discussed and ready to be put into place prior to the repeal.

[Consular]

Whatever you say, buddy. I don't think I need to waste more words running in circles with you. We've made our stances clear enough. If other assembly members would like to provide any commentary, I'd welcome them to do so.

[That Called the Vlagh]

Whatever you say, buddy. I don't think I need to waste more words running in circles with you. We've made our stances clear enough. If other assembly members would like to provide any commentary, I'd welcome them to do so.

Indeed.

 

My position is that you have some valid points and that I believe before we throw away the entire methodology of internal HGA enforcement of our law that at least some alternatives are presented.  Your position is that no alternative is needed, lets just throw it out.

 

Yes, I too would appreciate other commentary.

[URAP]

I think it would be only detrimental to myself and everyone around me for me to comment on this topic(or on the above conflict).

[Elegarth]

How come or why exactly?

[URAP]

How come or why exactly?

Well, I am not experienced with the issue at hand. I was not here to observe the passing of this code. Nor do I know anything about the above conflict.

[Little Sealand]

I was here for most of it, Im still not quite sure whats going on, so Ive refrained from posting.

[URAP]

Same idea.

[Elegarth]

I think I may not have expressed my opinion.

While I see how can the current civil code not be 100% totally perfectly fitted to TWP's overall reality, I think there is value on its current existence and creation, as both grant us a base to start crafting a more deliberately suited code of laws or conduct for TWP.

Now, fully repealing it will simply leave us with nothing, and I see that as a worst scenario than what we currently have.

Hence, instead of repealing it, I'd like to see it improved

[Elegarth]

Please check and read updated procedures for the HGA, in case you need / want to continue discussion on this topic:

http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1236-standard-procedures-of-the-regional-assembly-speaker-declaration/

Thanks!