NationStates Jolt Archive

Ambassador Prince Rhodri enters the debating chamber for the first time in a while. He ignores the occasional sheep imitations that accompany his progress, though not without a certain amount of grinding of teeth. When he reaches the rest of the Gobbannaen delegation, he stops and says something to them that causes Undersecretary Cerys to grin broadly. Those nearby distinctly hear the words "compulsory rugby practise" amongst the muttering. Then he turns to address the rest of the chamber.

"Ambassadors, we am informed that while our attention was elsewhere--"

"In the baa," someone heckles.

"Elsewhere," the Prince repeats more loudly, "a regrettably inadequately debated resolution concerning Fair Trials was voted into being by this assembly. Fortunately through the good offices of Ambassador Willing," he nods towards the Dourian delegation, "we have before us a quorate repeal of that resolution. While we hope for its passage, it behooves us as an assembly to further consider what a Fair Trial resolution should entail.

"Fortunately again this is a matter over which we were much exercised shortly before the founding of the World Assembly, and we therefore present the following for your collective inspection and comment. We have sought advice from other fora before this point, and we hope that you will find the work that has already been done acceptable for submission. We are particularly interested in opinions concerning the correctness of the category and strength we have asserted, over which we have long dithered."

Fair Trial Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that anyone may be accused of a criminal act, whether innocent or not;

DESIRING that the innocent not be wrongly punished and that the guilty not be wrongly exonerated;

BELIEVING that rigorous examination of evidence will aid this cause;

RECOGNIZING that nations have many different legal systems, based on local needs and history;

OBSERVING that persons from many nations travel to other nations for a variety of reasons;

CONVINCED that international agreement amongst member states on the basic legal rights of individuals concerning trials can further protect travellers and improve relations between nations;

MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defense properly assembling available relevant evidence;

DEFINES "criminal offences" as those prosecuted by the state or a state-appointed actor;

REQUIRES that such trials be directed impartially by someone competent in the area of law concerned;

REQUIRES further that such trials be adjudicated impartially by person or persons competent to understand the proceedings;

COMMENDS to the consideration of member nations a jury of the accused's peers as such trial adjudicators;

INSISTS that the accused be permitted expert representation by a professional versed in the area of law concerned;

INSISTS that the accused and their representative be permitted to confer in private as regards the facts and presentation of the case, and that no part of such a conference may be revealed to any third party without the explicit permission of the accused;

FURTHER INSISTS that governmental or charitable mechanisms be set up to provide such representation to those accused otherwise unable to afford it;

REQUIRES that the accused be capable of understanding proceedings, through the provision by the court of translators and care workers if such are necessary;

REQUIRES that evidence-giving, any addressing of the trial adjudicators by either the prosecuting or defending parties, and any procedural or legal directives made by the trial director shall be open and transparent, excepting that individual evidence-giving may be done with the public excluded if the trial director agrees that openness would present a risk to national security;

OBSERVES that ceremonial or religious activities of the court not related to evidence-giving, addressing the trial adjudicators, or directing the course of the trial may or may not be required to be open at the determination of member nations;

FORBIDS prejudicial public discussion of a trial and prejudicial private discussion with the trial adjudicators while the trial is in progress;

REQUIRES that the accused, through their representative, be permitted to question those who bear witness against them;

ALLOWS that the identity of witnesses may be concealed as deemed appropriate by the trial director, provided there are reasonable grounds to fear that the witnesses concerned may otherwise be endangered or unfairly coerced;

REQUIRES that the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial;

OPINES that a trial should be held reasonably locally to the place of commission of the alleged crime;

HEARTILY RECOMMENDS the use of a verdict of "Not Proven" where the trial adjudicators think it appropriate.

the government of the emperor of urgench believes this resolution to be an utterly sound piece of legislation, clear, unambiguous and an excellent platform from which to harmonize personal rights with local legal tradition.
we would heartily endorse this resolution at vote and have only the highest respect for the esteemed delegacy of gobbanium for writting it.


yours etc. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the w.a. for the empire of urgench

and we hope that you will find the work that has already been done acceptable for submission.

*Stands before the ambassadors with a grave expression*

Prince Rhodri, we do appreciate your efforts to fill the gap that may soon be left behind. And we do commend your surprising swiftness in the matter.

However, you were fully aware that our delegation, The Narnian Council, is working hand in hand with Ambassador Willing of The Dourian Embassy, the author of the appropriate repeal.

And you were also aware that our delegation has been looking forward to submitting this replacement for quite some time now. We can be sure of this, because you posted here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558359

This political battle was between South Oceana and I back in April. I submitted my Fair Criminal Trial proposal, gaining 160+ approvals in a much quicker time than South Oceana's did. Unfortunately, South Oceana had submitted his a few hours before mine, and even though it reached quorum after mine, it was nevertheless, the first in the queue.

Subsequently, it went before the entire World Assembly to vote upon before mine, and because the members were unaware that a much more competent proposal was already in existence, just awaiting its turn, they assumed something was better than nothing, and decided to approve South Oceana's legislation. As a result, my proposal was obviously deleted for duplication, and this caused much discontent. In fact, four repeals (though rather incompetent ones) sprung up the next day.

Hence the reason The Dourian Embassy has finally submitted a worthy repeal against South Oceana's Fair Trial resolution.

You are well aware of these events. Even more so, you were well aware that I will be submitting the replacement - as are most of the Delegates present at the time of the unfortunate conflict. So why have you drafted your own? Because you could have done a better job?...well, thats the excuse you give everyone.

Despite that, and just looking over it very briefly, this new proposal of yours is written with sufficient prose, but is pretty vague in alot of parts:

reasonable speed as is consistent

...such trials be directed impartially by someone competent

with the public excluded if the trial director agrees that openness would present a risk to national security

[OOC: Ouch. I can just see a Castro or Stalin cackling in delight]

reasonable grounds

reasonably locally

'Reasonable' can be a dangerous word. And why is this not called a Fair 'Criminal' Trial? What will you be calling a proposal that addresses civil trials? Fair Trial Part 2?

Besides all this, I will be submitting the replacement Fair Criminal Trial proposal here at the forums shortly, in continuation the pre-arranged preparations.

I'm sorry to have to speak out against you again, Prince Rhodri, but I'll admit that I'm quite irritated at your either complete blindness or astonishing vanity.

___________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Prince Rhodri, we do appreciate your efforts to fill the gap that may soon be left behind. And we do commend your surprising swiftness in the matter.
We are flattered by your comments, Lord Chancellor, but must demur. The swiftness is only apparent swiftness; this proposal has been in substantially this form, barring the obvious arguments over details, for some weeks now.

However, you were fully aware that our delegation, The Narnian Council, is working hand in hand with Ambassador Willing of The Dourian Embassy, the author of the appropriate repeal.
In point of fact we were not, although we appreciate that Ambassador Willing has spoken very warmly of your proposal. We had been made aware of your intention to submit your proposal, not least by Ambassador Willing, which seems to be the thrust of your point, however. Clearly we believe that our proposal has advantages over what has been reported to us of your proposal, otherwise we would not have proposed it. It is possible that we may yet iterate to a common position on this matter, though our approaches do seem to be from somewhat different directions.

[snip history] In fact, four repeals (though rather incompetent ones) sprung up the next day.
Long and impatient observation of this chamber suggests that this is rather the norm, and normally with much less cause.

You are well aware of these events. Even more so, you were well aware that I will be submitting the replacement - as are most of the Delegates present at the time of the unfortunate conflict. So why have you drafted your own? Because you could have done a better job?...well, thats the excuse you give everyone.
On the contrary, we believe that we have done a better job. "Could haves" are for people who, unlike yourself and ourself, prefer to whine rather than put in the effort of drafting themselves. Better, we consider, to present something sufficiently concrete that actual comparisons can be made than to waste breath on nebulous possibility.

'Reasonable' can be a dangerous word.
It can. The problem with more specific verbiage is that we are yet to see any that is less dangerous. In the three cases quoted where the word appears, it is in any case the assessment of the trial director that is being sought, and it is in the interests of the director's duty of impartiality for them to actually be reasonable.

And why is this not called a Fair 'Criminal' Trial? What will you be calling a proposal that addresses civil trials? Fair Trial Part 2?
A fair question. The simple answer is that we did not think of it. Given your later-stated intention to use that title yourself, it is clear that we cannot do so now. We would take the position that a subsequent resolution addressing civil trials -- a subject we have looked at only long enough to ascertain that it is considerably more fraught than might be hoped -- could equally well take the title "Fair Civil Trial".

Besides all this, I will be submitting the replacement Fair Criminal Trial proposal here at the forums shortly, in continuation the pre-arranged preparations.
We would certainly not urge you to do otherwise.

I'm sorry to have to speak out against you again, Prince Rhodri, but I'll admit that I'm quite irritated at your either complete blindness or astonishing vanity.
We, by turn, are very much of the opinion that no one embassy should expect to claim sole ownership of a subject -- though we might stretch a point where the reknowned drafting skills of the Cobdenian delegation concerning sea-related issues is concerned. There have been numerous mutually-exclusive proposals for the funding and taxation policy of this assembly that have come forward in the last few months, for example.

(OOC: This is the only OOC note I'm going to make in this thread, and it's only to say that I will not be responding to anything said out of character. We've been there before, and it doesn't work between the two of us.)

Simply to note that the original post has been updated in line with comments made elsewhere, and after some external debate the category has been returned to Human Rights. The relevant changes are underlined.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to make an inquiry of the respected delegate for Gobbanium, are we to understand that should this resolution be passed, our quiriltai (supreme court/chief court of appeal/legislative and tribal council) would no longer be able to hold it's proceedings in camera? the nature of this court is very ancient and it's being tampered with would create much unrest and anger among our people.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

UNDERSTANDING that anyone may be accused of a criminal act, whether innocent or not;

DESIRING that the innocent not be wrongly punished and that the guilty not be wrongly exonerated;

BELIEVING that rigorous examination of evidence will aid this cause;



Prince Rhodri, I accuse you and your esteemed colleague Ambassador Willing of the heinous crime of woffling. Woffling around the issue of innocent until proven guilty without committing yourselves to this cornerstone of justice in any decent, civilised nation.

How plead you?

Speaking of civil, I have just made a most excellent batch of scones, the pot should be nicely steeped now with high-grade Assam tea, and I have some wonderful wild strawberry jam made from strawberries picked from my country cottage (I remembered to take a couple of jars before I dashed to the airport straight here - ah well, two days off did the trick). A friendly neighbour, knowing my fondness for scones (sometimes I think she comes over for my jam, her cows are rather fond of wild strawberries and the poor thing seldom gets to hers before the bovines), I digress, before leaving, she presented me with a huge container of the thickest, most glorious organically farmed double cream you have ever tried! (I still thinks she wants the jam in return!)

Would you care to discuss the matter over a spot of Devonshire tea?

Lars Inki.

OOC: Innocent until proven guilty is something that can and should be kept from the current resolution; I'm quite happy to dig in on this one if there is a proposal thread on a forum elsewhere. "Fair Trial" is too important not to get right.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to make an inquiery of the respected delegate for Gobbanium, are we to understand that should this resolution be passed, our quiriltai (supreme court/chief court of appeal/legislative and tribal council) would no longer be able to hold it's proceedings in camera? the nature of this court is very ancient and it's being tampered with would create much unrest and anger among our people.

We would indeed be strongly against any court of whatever supremacy operating wholly in camera. We have no objections to ceremonial or religious undertakings of your quiriltai occuring under the shroud of decent mystery, and will redraft to be explicit concerning that point, but we regard it as crucial for a trial to be demonstrably fair that all evidence-giving and addressing of the adjudicators takes place in public in so far as is possible. Conversely, the deliberations of the adjudicators are something we would expect to take place in private; as long as no new evidence is introduced, one can imagine as many good reasons for remaining silent on such issues as for publishing them abroad.

Prince Rhodri, I accuse you and your esteemed colleague Ambassador Willing of the heinous crime of woffling. Woffling around the issue of innocent until proven guilty without committing yourselves to this cornerstone of justice in any decent, civilised nation.

How plead you?

We plead innocent of the act, Ambassador Lars, but guilty of the deeper intent you note. We were not waffling with the intent to obfusticate, we entirely deliberately did not mention the presumption of innocence because we do not believe it to be essential to the conduct of a fair trial.

Gobbannaen law does indeed presume that someone accused of a crime is innocent until the prosecuting council proves beyond doubt that they are guilty. However, in the course of researching this proposal we came across justice systems which made the opposite presumption and yet, through the safeguards of evidencial procedure, managed to produce fair and reasonable results of trials. Better, we came across one system which takes the stand that both sides must prove their point and returns a verdict of "not proven" should neither be convincing.

The traditional argument for the presumption of innocence is that otherwise proceedings can be prejudiced. If the judge is considering how best to phrase "I sentence you to..." before a word of evidence has been heard, so it is said, then how can proceedings be fair.

We do not buy this argument for the simple reason that it can be turned on its head with equal effect. If the judge is considering the most felicitous phrasing for an exoneration before proceeding commence, that would be equally unfair. Better, we consider, to insist that both judge and jury, or more accurately trial director and trial adjudicators, be impartial.

Would you care to discuss the matter over a spot of Devonshire tea?

Thank you Ambassador, we would be delighted.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to thank the great and sagacious delegate for gobbanium for their most reassuring reply. we feel that your nations excellent wisdom will see to it that our nations traditions are not unduely offended and we look forward to offering you any assistance you may need in the future, so great is our gratitude. we will certainly point out, where ever we may, to other member states the great utility and justice of this proposed resolution as compared to any of it's competitors.

surely this resolution will greatly extend the protection of basic rights to justice of the peoples of the world assembly.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

Prince Rhodri, I accuse you and your esteemed colleague Ambassador Willing of the heinous crime of woffling. Woffling around the issue of innocent until proven guilty without committing yourselves to this cornerstone of justice in any decent, civilised nation.

Not that I don't see alot of merit to this particular proposal, but you do realize this is not the proposal I'm pushing as a replacement, right?

My apologies Deputy Ambassador Willing, I stand corrected. There was some confusion earlier on this thread, and I must admit to only scanning rather than reading. As I stated earlier, I was taking a brief respite from the hurly-burly of Minyosian politics at my country cottage, and left for the airport at quite short notice. Then the turbulence on the flight to WA Headquarters was so bad that I could only use my laptop in snatches to read the proposal; most offputting!

I totally agree. The attempt to be inclusive regarding differing modalities of justice systems has been deftly handled by Prince Rhodri, whether I accept his reasoning or not. The brevity of this proposal is also in its favour, well-written brevity at that.

I still hope you will attend at tea, the invitation was to both the Prince and yourself George - may I call you George? I had presumed upon your attendance; it occurs to me now that the Prince was speaking in the royal third person when he said "we".

Etiquette demands that I also invite the Ambassador for the Narnian Council; it would not be fitting to do otherwise now as collaborators on the other proposal. If business is spoken, so be it, but let it mostly be pleasure...I propose a leisurely tea in the dappled shade lest the cream spoil; I know just the spot.

Lars Inki.

OOC: Sorry! I had/have a bad head cold and just scanned when I posted last night. Head was too swimmy to take in everything properly - I thought you had worked on this one as well.

Not that I don't see alot of merit to this particular proposal, but you do realize this is not the proposal I'm pushing as a replacement, right?

We apologise if we inadvertently gave the impression that you had contributed to our effort in more than parallels of spirit, Ambassador.

We have updated our proposal again to clarify the issue of openness, and would ask Khan Mongkha if this addresses his concerns appropriately. We took the opportunity also to add a clause requiring privacy and confidentiality for discussions between the accused and their legal representative, and the justificatory preamble Ambassador Katzman has kindly permitted us to copy.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to convey our great pleasure at the revisions to the most august delegate for Gobbanniums' proposed resolution, we now feel that this resolution is in all parts compatible with our legal system, and indeed with the overall aim of safe-guarding the citizens of w.a. member states' personal access to justice.
his divine majesty the Emperor, her august majesty the dowager empress Sorghakhtani and his excellency the grand chamberlain of the empire, Tamerlane of samarkand and bhukhara, wish us to profer our infinite gratitude to the wise and benificent delegate and their great nation for the great favour they have shown our humble people.

may the horde of Gobbannium ride swift across the plain for all time.


yours in much gratitude, Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench.

I was in general not in favor of the repeal of the previous resolution.
I find this resolution well written and a better replacement than alternatives.
Seeing the "OPINES" in this resolution, however is priceless.

You have my full support.

We thank His Majesty for his support, and are glad that our language is considered so felicitous.

This proposal has now been submitted. The approvals link, for those who feel so inclined, is this: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=proceedings

The Holy Empire of New Illuve misses a potentially important area in this Proposal. Namely: any right to appeal a decision, or to have a ruling reviewed. Disregarding the possibility of perjury, falsified and/or manipulated evidence, or substantial and materially unreliable witnesses other events may warrant revisiting procedures.

Future technological developments may create situations in which evidence that was not considered during trial becomes admissible, such as due to the advancements of DNA testing. New evidence may come to light after a trial, casting what was a reasonable and well founded verdict into question. Errors in procedures may be discovered after the fact.

Even assuming that all parties involved in the legal proceedings act in good faith, integrity, and honesty to not include measures that grant a right for further review given new material information means that identifiable miscarriages of justice do not need to be correctable.

In the opinion of the Holy Empire, the spirit of this Proposal strongly suggests that judicial review needs to be included. She would ask that just an element be included.

In the opinion of the Holy Empire, the spirit of this Proposal strongly suggests that judicial review needs to be included. She would ask that just an element be included.

We beg to disagree, honoured ambassador. We consider that the matter of appeals is sufficiently important and distinct that it deserves a resolution all of its own, and attempting to deal with it in the course of this proposal would be to the detriment of both. In particular, anything stated in this or any other proposal as regards appeals may be neither repeated nor meaningfully referenced by another resolution, complicating future legislation considerably.

The objection raised by his royal highness has merit, but is also true for any and every Resolution of import passed by the World Assembly. In that vein one can ask if any Resolution should thus be passed, as it may complicate the work on future Resolutions. Should the Resolution be strong, however, there should be little to no need to return to it for repeal.

The Holy Empire is still of the opinion that any concept for a fair trial necessarily contains within it the possibility for review. Otherwise, it is more than possible that the trial be fair, while the evidence put forward at the trail be anything but fair - with no recourse for correction.

True; a future Resolution could correct that situation, but there is no draft presented nor plans announced for such a creation. And, unless that Resolution were to contain procedural rules and the rights and duties within it, it would either revert to local legislation in terms of trail (which would be this Proposal via an indirect manner), or directly to this Proposal. Simplicity suggests to include a path of review within this Proposal.

The Holy Empire puts forward this suggestion as an amendment to the Proposal:

REQUIRES sufficient avenues for judicial review to be in place, under these conditions set out in this Resolution, to adjudicate on miscarriages of substantial procedure and/or justice, or as new material evidence may arise that could impact significantly on previous judgments.

The objection raised by his royal highness has merit, but is also true for any and every Resolution of import passed by the World Assembly. In that vein one can ask if any Resolution should thus be passed, as it may complicate the work on future Resolutions.
One could so ask. One could, however, observe that there is a clear separation between the trial itself and the procedures of the justice system both before and after. Given such clearly delineable dividing lines, we think that it is more appropriate to leave the matter of appeals for a separate resolution in exactly the same way that we believe pre-trial rights are a complex and well-enough delineated subject to deserve their own resolution.

Should the Resolution be strong, however, there should be little to no need to return to it for repeal.
The more that is addressed within a resolution, the less likely it is to be strong. We can, for example, think of a number of caveats and expansions which could and most likely should be applied to the admirable principle that the ambassador has laid out. Doing so, however, would place us in grave danger of exceeding the character limit for resolutions, and while there are options for the compression of the remainder of the text, we would need a more pressing reason than "we can" to make such emendations.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to express it's gravest concern and dissapointment that the proposed resolution of the highly respected ambassador for Gobbannium will not it seems be brought before the w.a. for vote.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for Urgench

We thank the honoured Khan for his concern, but we decided once it became clear that the Narnian proposal would reach quorum that completing our telegram campaign would be wasted energy. We hope that our fellow ambassadors will forgive us the unworthy hope of a second chance in the near future.

Perhaps, in the case that mine should not pass, it might have been worthwhile for this proposal to have reached quorum - as a safety net?

I too am optimistic about Fair Criminal Trial's chances, but the outcome is by no means certain.

At any rate, you should still be congratulated for the competent effort, and we certainly look forward to seeing more legislation produced by the Gobbannium delegation in the future!

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It's not overly optimistic to think yours will pass, Narninan nor too pessimistic for him to think his won't see the light of day.

The margin of victory of the repeal, which clearly stated that a replacement was coming, is a good indicator.

The people you lose who didn't want a replacement will be more than accounted for by people who voted against the repeal because they thought I was full of shit.

the government of the emperor of urgench wonders why the respected Dourian ambassador chooses to be so opaque on the one hand and so foulmouthed on the other. Is the respected ambassador trying to say that the honoured delegate for the Narnian councils resolution is guaranteed to be passed because it will appeal to those nations who do not agree with the concept of fair trial? is it the Dourian embassys contention that the narnian resolution is a charter for despots and tyrants who have no regard for fairness and justice?
as to the final comments of the highly respected delegate is that sort of language appropriate for a debate of this kind? are we not under the kind of scrutiny that encourages less salty discourse?

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

What I'm sayin', if it's hard to understand, is that the people that voted for the repeal, and plan to vote against a replacement(with full knowledge that one would be coming), will generally be replaced by people who voted against the repeal because they thought I was lying when I said a replacement was coming.

Or full of shit, I think that makes the point a bit better.

Perhaps, in the case that mine should not pass, it might have been worthwhile for this proposal to have reached quorum - as a safety net?

The Lord Chancellor may rest assured that should our pessimism concerning his proposal be unfounded, we shall immediately resubmit our proposal with a contact list refined by experience.

In the mean time, we find ourselves open for improving debate once again, should anyone wish to indulge.

What I'm sayin', if it's hard to understand, is that the people that voted for the repeal, and plan to vote against a replacement(with full knowledge that one would be coming), will generally be replaced by people who voted against the repeal because they thought I was lying when I said a replacement was coming.

Or full of shit, I think that makes the point a bit better.

the goverment of the emperor of urgench concurs with the honoured ambassador for the Dourian Embassy, they have made their point quite clear.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench.

I'm about to give the repeal a serious go, so this is relevant again:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/ci5rod/bermp.jpg

I have a question for the Gobbannium Ambassador, pardon my ignorance if I read the proposal wrong, but I was wondering how this resolution would affect restorative justice systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice). In particular I'm referring to the informal court system of the First Nation's people in the mythical "real world"? If you're unfamiliar with this system, I'll explain it simply as a process called a "Healing Circle" where victims, offenders and members of the community work to fix their problems. Its used particularly in messy divorces as a way of handing down sentences and not harming the very important community and social network. While the more formal court handles assault, theft and so forth.

I ask because this style of justice is much different, and lacks lawyers and juries which this resolution I believe pertains to.

Though, I have already informed my WA delegate of your resolution. He appears to show full delight in its wording and potential.

I have a question for the Gobbannium Ambassador, pardon my ignorance if I read the proposal wrong, but I was wondering how this resolution would affect restorative justice systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice). In particular I'm referring to the informal court system of the First Nation's people in the mythical "real world"? If you're unfamiliar with this system, I'll explain it simply as a process called a "Healing Circle" where victims, offenders and members of the community work to fix their problems. Its used particularly in messy divorces as a way of handing down sentences and not harming the very important community and social network. While the more formal court handles assault, theft and so forth.

I ask because this style of justice is much different, and lacks lawyers and juries which this resolution I believe pertains to.

His Nibs can't be here just yet, but he asked me to pass on this reply. ::Cerys studies the telegram slip in her hands for a moment, then tosses it over her shoulder:: In English, it doesn't interact with your specific example because what you describe deals with civil proceedings and the proposal deals with criminal trials. I'll make a note to slip a suitable definition in; we regard "criminal proceedings" as being those where the state (or a suitably licenced organisation, for those who must hive everything off to corporations) acts as the prosecution.

In general, you're right, the proposal does concentrate on courtroom drama. It's not actually incompatible with Restorative Justice, though. It carefully doesn't say anything about sentencing, one area Restorative Justice is very concerned with, and it doesn't rule out mediation meetings as long as those don't involve discussion with the trial adjudicators and do allow expert representation. I think it all still works; if you see a problem, please say so and we'll try to fix it.

Ahhh Thats Horrible, Fair Trial? are you Kidding me That Goes against Communism/Socialism. and as Such must Be Repulsed, we dont want a Murderer to be let go just because of a lack of Evidence.

Ahhh Thats Horrible, Fair Trial? are you Kidding me That Goes against Communism/Socialism. and as Such must Be Repulsed, we dont want a Murderer to be let go just because of a lack of Evidence.


What outstanding reasoning and miraculous perspicacity. Socialism=Communism=Tyranny, breathtaking


Yours,

Ahhh Thats Horrible, Fair Trial? are you Kidding me That Goes against Communism/Socialism. and as Such must Be Repulsed, we dont want a Murderer to be let go just because of a lack of Evidence.

I would caution my Esteemed Colleague not to paint all communist countries with the same brush. Many of our allies who subscribe to communist ideals still afford their citizens a right to fair trial.

I would also remind him that in our nation while setting an murderer free because of lack of evidence is terrible, imprisoning someone without sufficient evidence is just as deploreable.

Ambassador Nigel S Youlkin

well atleast there not wait, your not saying Toture is going to be Repulsed right?

well atleast there not wait, your not saying Toture is going to be Repulsed right?

I would direct my esteemed colleague to review the passed resolutions namely this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835796&postcount=11) You will find we've already covered that subject.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Ambassador

Ahhh Thats Horrible, Fair Trial? are you Kidding me That Goes against Communism/Socialism. and as Such must Be Repulsed, we dont want a Murderer to be let go just because of a lack of Evidence.

It may go against your view of what communism/socialism means, but as a socialist state, Rutianas does not pass a guilty verdict against someone if there is a lack of evidence.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Ahhh Thats Horrible, Fair Trial? are you Kidding me That Goes against Communism/Socialism. and as Such must Be Repulsed, we dont want a Murderer to be let go just because of a lack of Evidence.

Then you're a bloody idiot, but you've already proved that several times over in just one and a half sentences. How can you be sure that the person you've got is a murderer if you haven't got convincing evidence against her? Or are you content to execute someone at random just to be seen to be doing something?

mediation meetings as long as those don't involve discussion with the trial adjudicators

I'm not really turned off by the proposal at all, it seems fine. But I think that the courtroom system/lingo could be toned down a bit, to allow nations with different justice systems to fully be compatible with the resolution. For example the native system of government that I brought up does involve the mediator/judge to be involved with long discussions and meditation with the victim,the accused and various members of the community.

I'm quite pleased with the current draft, but on behalf of the Federation I must protest that the accused are given the right to refuse to answer a question put to them during their trial if it will incriminate them. Certainly protections against coercion to confess are necessary to the conduct of a fair judicial process, but no party should have a right to withold evidence or testimony that would aid the court in dispensing dustice.

Riley Fluffer
Representative of the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

Certainly protections against coercion to confess are necessary to the conduct of a fair judicial process, but no party should have a right to withold evidence or testimony that would aid the court in dispensing dustice.
Given that there are several other cases when parties should withold evidence (client priviledge and national security, most obviously), you'll have to give me a better reason than that.

but no party should have a right to withold evidence or testimony that would aid the court in dispensing dustice.

I wouldn't support this proposal if it forced nations to be aggressive in investigation to the point where basic rights and freedoms are lost.

Prosecution and Defence Lawyers will hold back evidence and submit it later to form an organized and more powerful case. But they wouldn't hold back evidence if it helped them win the case, and I'm sure that the inverse of that statement is covered legally somewhere in this proposal (lieing on the stand..ect.)

If you're suggesting that the proposal cement the right for anyone to be allowed to the witness stand. That would seem reasonable, the crown shouldn't be able to say "no, he's a bigtopian, he can't be on the stand" and then convict a criminal because his main witness wasn't allowed to supply a testimony.

Given that there are several other cases when parties should withold evidence (client priviledge and national security, most obviously), you'll have to give me a better reason than that.
The proposal doesn't exclude evidence from the court for national security purposes, it allows witholding of such evidence from the public. Attorney-client privilege is legitimate because it involves discussion of legal strategy. Facts of the case can be discovered in a more pure form by soliciting other sources of information. The defendant himself may have information no one else does. If he has the right to withhold it because it might reflect poorly on him, whether he is guilty or not, it could interfere with the court's discovery of the full truth and the proper dispensation of justice.

Riley Fluffer
Representative of the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

If [the defendent] has the right to withhold it because it might reflect poorly on him, whether he is guilty or not, it could interfere with the court's discovery of the full truth and the proper dispensation of justice.
But by the same token, the defendent is refusing to say something in open court on the grounds that it would incriminate her. Explicitly. That's never going to look good, which is why I'm not personally convinced that this is a great tactic anyway. I'm sorry, I don't buy the need for 'full truth' when the adjudicators have half a brain between them in circumstances like that.

I'm not asking you to agree, I'm simply stating the Federation's position on the proposal.

Riley Fluffer
Representative of the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

Has the ambassador considered defining the legal forms of evidence?

Such as dismissing polygraphs, digital photographs, forensic hypnosis or tape recordings as administrable evidence?

Or should that be left to the national level to decide?

Has the ambassador considered defining the legal forms of evidence?

Considered and rejected, purely on the grounds of space. There's very little spare room here, and it's better to say nothing (and leave the question open for future resolutions) than say something brief and almost certainly wrong.

While there are still 2 days left on the repeal, which does mean a lot could happen, how soon after its hypothetical passing do you plan on submitting this?

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/39/oiseauisignatureng9.png

My plan is to submit early in the New Year, since Christmas isn't a period when I'd be expecting many delegates to be around.

(OOC: sorry not to have updated anything, but in the Real World I've been fairly lurgified for the past few days. I can write Cerys-snark on autopilot, but figuring out how to make sure this doesn't block restorative justice without adding more than one word is a bit trickier!)

((C&P'd from Official Topic. I didn't know if you checked one more than others?))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Council of the Republic of Praetura have gone over the current issue. Here are their comments:

WORRIED that dealing with both pre-trial and at-trial rights in a single resolution leaves too little room for either,

"Repealing a passed issue that concerns BOTH pre-trial and at-trial rights without adequetly explaining what our options are for a replacement is unacceptable. If the resolution prior contained both sets of rights, then this can as well."

CONCERNED that witnesses may refuse cross-examination at their whim,

The Council has recognized this as a flaw and concur with your concern. They have yet to release a formal statement on an appropriate solution.

AWARE that the right to face one's accusers is an essential part of a free trial,

"That is irrelevent and should be stricken from the record."

CONCERNED that trials must be fully open, and may in no part take place in privacy,

The Council demands a reason as to why you display concern over the understandable unwillingness for an individual to lay his life before his friends and neighbors.

The Council also asks why one does not consider high-profile cases such as celebrities, as well as matters of national security.

"Will you put your nation's safety into jeopardy because your repeal DEMANDED public trials?"

VERY CONCERNED that jury deliberations are part of a trial, and that public deliberation will put undue pressures on jurists,

"One cannot have the deliberation be part of the trial AND have no outside pressures. Furthermore, with the knowledge that diliberations may last hours on end (even up to days), one cannot take the time of government officials such as the District Attorneys, Public Defenders, and judges when , not only their involvement inexistent, but illegal!"

ALARMED that the defence counsel must be supplied with any documentation relevant to the case, no matter how confidential,

"We cannot relate the alarm. The right of 'discovery' is mandatory. How would one call a resolution a 'fair trial' when the defense is prohibited to know the evidence of which the state has against the accused!"

APPALLED that client/patient privilege, amongst other confidential arrangements, is thus wiped out at a stroke,

"The Council believes that the client/patient priviledge is important although it is NOT a right the state grants to the accused but a right between legal counsel and client."

ALARMED that files related to national security can also be revealed and discussed in detail in open court,

"The Council believes that you contradict yourself...

You wrote:

CONCERNED that trials must be fully open, and may in no part take place in privacy,

[end]

This point must be elaborated on, if I am mistaken?

OUTRAGED at the security hole that every single member nation of the World Assembly is now required to have,

"Indeed...a security hole that will only broaden if your current draft if this repeal is passed."

VERDICT

The Council of the Republic of Praetura votes AGAINST the Repeal of Resolution #13 and PLEADS with the World Assembly to reconsider the repeal until a more concrete plan is laid out.

(and leave the question open for future resolutions)

hmm... maybe I shall. Maybe I shall....muh hahahaha. Dahm those polygraphers, psychics and hypnotists! Its time for them to feel the wrath of justice!

((C&P'd from Official Topic. I didn't know if you checked one more than others?))
Answered here because I read both as often as each other, and I read it here first.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Council of the Republic of Praetura have gone over the current issue. Here are their comments:

"Repealing a passed issue that concerns BOTH pre-trial and at-trial rights without adequetly explaining what our options are for a replacement is unacceptable. If the resolution prior contained both sets of rights, then this can as well."
Only if it wants to cover both too briefly, and therefore badly. There is a length limit on resolutions, you know.

"That is irrelevent and should be stricken from the record."
On the contrary, that fact that it couldn't be guaranteed until the repeal passed was very relevant. That's a consequence of the point you've already agreed was a flaw.

The Council demands a reason as to why you display concern over the understandable unwillingness for an individual to lay his life before his friends and neighbors.

The Council also asks why one does not consider high-profile cases such as celebrities, as well as matters of national security.

"Will you put your nation's safety into jeopardy because your repeal DEMANDED public trials?"
Maybe you should read what it was the repeal actually said? It's "Fair Criminal Trial" itself that demands total openness, so you can stop agreeing with me quite so loudly.

"One cannot have the deliberation be part of the trial AND have no outside pressures. Furthermore, with the knowledge that diliberations may last hours on end (even up to days), one cannot take the time of government officials such as the District Attorneys, Public Defenders, and judges when , not only their involvement inexistent, but illegal!"
Uh, what? I was just pointing out that again because FCT required total openness, jury deliberations couldn't take place in private. Which I think you agree is bad, but you're not making a whole lot of relevance here.

"We cannot relate the alarm. The right of 'discovery' is mandatory. How would one call a resolution a 'fair trial' when the defense is prohibited to know the evidence of which the state has against the accused!"
Let me emphasis the important bit again: "no matter how confidential."

"The Council believes that the client/patient priviledge is important although it is NOT a right the state grants to the accused but a right between legal counsel and client."
That's one of them. How about the priviledge between doctor and patient? Your medical records can become open court documents if they're even marginally relevant to a case. Priviledge between government and citizen? Your tax returns for the year have the same problem. And so on. You can forget any right to privacy you might have thought you had if came anywhere near a court case. Or at least you could forget it until the repeal passed.

"The Council believes that you contradict yourself...

This point must be elaborated on, if I am mistaken?
You are mistaken. I hadn't thought anyone could manage to read "CONCERNED" as anything but yet another synonym for "WORRIED", given the structure of the repeal.


"Indeed...a security hole that will only broaden if your current draft if this repeal is passed."
OK, I think you need to explain yourself. I'm certain that you're wrong, but exactly how you're wrong depends on which bit of this sentence is a typo.

We regret the delay in putting forward this proposal, cause by a lack of interest in international matters on the part of our former region. We hope to have remedied this situation shortly, and therefore bring a slightly revised version of the proposal back for discussion.

We have thought long and hard about the matter of restorative justice, and have concluded that while some implementations of it will be inconvenienced by the openness requirements of this proposal, such systems are by no means blocked. A little bureaucrat adeptness may be needed, but no more than that.

Beyond that, our recollection of some of the reactions to the previous resolution on fair trials has convinced us that a minimal definition would be useful. We have updated the proposal with one such:

DEFINES "criminal offences" as those prosecuted by the state or a state-appointed actor;

We are not entirely happy with this, and would invite comment and discussion. We should however bear in mind that this brings the proposal very slightly over length by our calculations, and that a few words will need to be trimmed here and there if we can do so without causing ambiguity or damage.

Do the moderators actually count the word length down to a couple of words?...I thought it was just a guideline. But then again, I ALSO thought the multiying rule was just a "guideline" too, and that didn't go so well...

Perhaps the honoured Ambassador for Unibot shouldread the rules of this organisation properly. The word limit is absolute and is not a guideline, but it is not inforced by the moderators.


Yours,

With a few minor wording changes to allow space for the brief definition above, we have submitted this proposal. Accordingly we exhort delegates to consider it as it has been submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/02530/page=UN_proposal1/match=fairness) and, should they find it pleasing, approve it.

(OOC: or in English, "BUMP!")

Congrats on Reaching Quorum! :D

*Opens the cork of a bottle like a kid in a candy store*

Whoo! Quorum, and the following party...HERE's to Gobbannium, Free Trials and that dahm restorative justice...

*Drinks a hefty amount*

I'd like to ...make, an ANNOUNCEMENT....

...HERE's to um..Gobbannium...and free trial thingys and that... hahaha...restorativy justice.... may violet have mercy on our souls... hahaha, get it... violet? get it!?
Hahahahaha, anybody want a hug? I need another drink.

Happy Birthday
Happy Birthday
Happy Birthday...Dear Chuck
Happy Birthday...hahahahaa

We would like to thank the Yeldan delegation for their assistance in bringing this to the attention of delegates through determined telegramming, and to all the ambassadors who have sharpened this proposal into something ready for the floor of the World Assembly.

To the debate!

(OOC: I'm fine with this being the "at vote" thread, it's not like there has been a huge argument up to this point.)

I cannot support the Fairness in Criminal Trials proposal. The reasons follow; objections being in some cases mine and in others from the States. I await your angry retorts.

Granting the accused right to confer in private with counsel could facilitate hiding evidence from the court or other authorities. Requiring that the accused understand proceedings effectively bars prosecution of the mentally ill. Forbidding public discussion of a trial for its duration is an unjustified abridgement of freedom of speech for those not involoved in the trial. Allowing defendants to withold testimony that might incriminate them may lead to miscarriages of justice.

Riley Fluffer,
Representative of the Xanthalian Federation
Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

I'm fine with this being the "at vote" thread, it's not like there has been a huge argument up to this point.

OOC: I believe a mod can change the name to "at vote", if you ask in the moderation forum while you're getting it locked.

Do the moderators actually count the word length down to a couple of words?...I thought it was just a guideline.

OOC: It isn't the Mods, it's an automated part of the proposal-submission form which simply won't accept any proposal that's over the limit...

Granting the accused right to confer in private with counsel could facilitate hiding evidence from the court or other authorities. Requiring that the accused understand proceedings effectively bars prosecution of the mentally ill.
The honoured ambassador says this like he believes these to be bad things. Perhaps he could elucidate?

Forbidding public discussion of a trial for its duration is an unjustified abridgement of freedom of speech for those not involoved in the trial.
We feel it fully justified by any observation of "trial by media" in action. Such distasteful extraveganzas are universally inaccurate through oversimplification, and rarely make even the remotest pretense of being objective analyses. Without extraordinary measures they lead to hopelessly biased trial verdicts. In a choice between accurate justice and the freedom to gossip, the correct choice is clear.

Allowing defendants to withold testimony that might incriminate them may lead to miscarriages of justice.
We direct the honoured ambassador to our previous answer to this point.

OOC: I believe a mod can change the name to "at vote", if you ask in the moderation forum while you're getting it locked.
OOC: I'm not getting it locked, that's the point. It's fairly usual for a passing mod to sticky the debate thread as the "at vote" thread without the author's intervention, and I was just indicating that I'm OK with that since I was responding here anyway.

We feel it fully justified by any observation of "trial by media" in action. Such distasteful extraveganzas are universally inaccurate through oversimplification, and rarely make even the remotest pretense of being objective analyses. Without extraordinary measures they lead to hopelessly biased trial verdicts. In a choice between accurate justice and the freedom to gossip, the correct choice is clear.Right, and you're certain this doesn't flatly contradict the Freedom of Expression act?

Against.

My esteemed colleagues I rise today to oppose this measure as we feel the forbidding of discussion clause goes against not only this bodies Freedom Of Expression act but also our own constitutional protections of Philimbesieans right to free speech and press.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Ambassador

Senator Sulla looked a bit odd today.....well technically, the good but unwholesome senator looked a bit odd everyday, but this day le looked a bit more odd than normal. Insted of his normal siut he was wearing what appeared to be a General officer's uniform from the Continental Army, complete with cloak, tricorn hat, powdered wig and breeches. Standing up and looking out at his somewhat stunned fellow ambassadors, he said,

"While this resolution is nice, It is another one of those damned Human Rights resolutions that my nation and myself have grown tired of reading and supporting. Therefore, unless a VERY SIZABLE monetary gift is offered, The Palentine shall go on record against the resolution. We do this without malice, and wish Gobby luck. Now I've more important things to take care of."

Suddenly the good but unholesome senator stood up on his chair and placed one leg on the desk and leaned forward as if he was on the prow of a small boat. He turned to his stunned and bewildered staff and said,

"Now row you Bastards! We have to catch those <censored> Redcoats by dawn!"

(OOC:decided to have the good but unwholesome Senator celebrate Washington's Birthday in his own unique style.:D)

Right, and you're certain this doesn't flatly contradict the Freedom of Expression act?
We confess to not having reconsidered the draft in the light of the Freedom of Expression Act. That said, ambassadors will note that what is forbidden is prejudicial discussion of the trial, which we feel falls within the Act's definition of defamation. Factual reportage is not barred, nor are abstract discussions of the laws concerned.

"While this resolution is nice, It is another one of those damned Human Rights resolutions that my nation and myself have grown tired of reading and supporting. Therefore, unless a VERY SIZABLE monetary gift is offered, The Palentine shall go on record against the resolution. We do this without malice, and wish Gobby luck. Now I've more important things to take care of."
We quite understand, honoured ambassador. We regret that this invitation as our guest to the Zhaucauozian Friendship Ball, which we understand to be hosted on this occasion by Thessadoria, is not in fact a monetary gift. Nor, sadly, is the case of Wild Turkey that we find ourselves forced to use as a paperweight to hold it in place.

OOC: I'm not getting it locked, that's the point. It's fairly usual for a passing mod to sticky the debate thread as the "at vote" thread without the author's intervention, and I was just indicating that I'm OK with that since I was responding here anyway.

OOC: Oops. I didn't mean to write Locked, I meant sticky. I need sleep.

OOC: It isn't the Mods, it's an automated part of the proposal-submission form which simply won't accept any proposal that's over the limit...

Thanks for the clarification. That makes way more sense.

The honorable delegation of the People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan opposes this resolution, and pleads with its fellow brother nations to examine the flawed proposal before us more closely. Clearly this resolution will undermine the efficiency and fairness of criminal prosecutions in our homelands; while the resolution in question does provide a clause mandating transparency in trials, it then contradicts itself by wrapping up judicial proceedings in bureaucratic red tape. For by allowing suspects and witnesses to deliberately withold information from the people under the banner of "protection from self-incrimination," and in some cases concealing witnesses identities when such information could prove crucial to the trial, does this proposal not serve to obfuscate transparency in proceedings? These issues, we believe, apply to all World Assembly members, and deserve to be examined and discussed more closely before we hastily approve what at a superficial glance appears to be simply another "civil rights" resolution.

We confess to not having reconsidered the draft in the light of the Freedom of Expression Act. That said, ambassadors will note that what is forbidden is prejudicial discussion of the trial, which we feel falls within the Act's definition of defamation. Factual reportage is not barred, nor are abstract discussions of the laws concerned.And are all biased commentators and editorialists supposed to keep their lips zipped until the final verdict? Because they surely don't fall under Freedom of Expression's defamation exception. Besides, the act grants nations the right to make laws concerning defamation, not the WA. It is clear to me this resolution crosses a line, and faced with a decision between enforcing the WA's order to protect free expression, and enforcing its gag order on legal commentators, my nation will be forced to err on the side of personal freedom.

And are all biased commentators and editorialists supposed to keep their lips zipped until the final verdict? Because they surely don't fall under Freedom of Expression's defamation exception. Besides, the act grants nations the right to make laws concerning defamation, not the WA. It is clear to me this resolution crosses a line, and faced with a decision between enforcing the WA's order to protect free expression, and enforcing its gag order on legal commentators, my nation will be forced to err on the side of personal freedom.

Your hyper-legal misreading of the proposal is silly and disingenuous.

The language (emphasis added):

FORBIDS prejudicial public discussion of a trial and prejudicial private discussion with the trial adjudicators while the trial is in progress

I assume you don't contend that the portion prohibiting private discussions with trial adjudicators contradicts the Freedom of Expression Act.

As for prejudicial public discussion, note that "prejudicial" and "biased" are not the same thing. Many states with admirable protections of free expression place reasonable limits on expression that would interfere with the functioning of their courts (or the equivalent). Arguably prejudicial discussion is no more inherent to free expression than defamation, state secrets, or other express limits permitted by the Freedom of Expression Act.

Futher, what about the "personal freedom" of those on trial? Are their personal secrets not entitled to protection? Are they not to be protected from "legal commentators" who would seek to prejudice the trial against them?

The representative of Kosmoland admires Gobbanium's ambassador's proposal. It is admirable in its justice. But the debate was advanced with the citizens of Kosmoland, and some want to add something that appears natural to us: although it is a duty to know the law, the citizens of Kosmoland consider that the foreigners who come to visit the country cannot know all the degrees of the laws in our country. In case of a crime proven by a foreigner, " Our judging council" takes into account the fact that he might have not known that law and is ready to lighten the sentence if not let the person go for that reason. We understand that much countries are more severe than us, but we hope all the same that this question will be taken into account by the worthy members of this assembly.

The Prime Investigator of Filmnoir likes the clarity and tone of this bill, but takes issue with the passage about allowing the accused to not incriminate him- or herself.

Is this really in the interest of the greater good? Would it not, perhaps, be in the greater interest to demand that the accused supply all the information that he or she knows, under penalty of perjury, so that the court system be allowed to function to its greatest extent?

The Prime Investigator of Filmnoir likes the clarity and tone of this bill, but takes issue with the passage about allowing the accused to not incriminate him- or herself.

Is this really in the interest of the greater good? Would it not, perhaps, be in the greater interest to demand that the accused supply all the information that he or she knows, under penalty of perjury, so that the court system be allowed to function to its greatest extent?

To quote some wise men respected by The Cat-Tribe, the privilege against self-incrimination "reflects many of our fundamental values and most noble aspirations; our unwillingness to subject those suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt; our preference for an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system of criminal justice; our fear that self-incriminating statements will be elicited by inhumane treatment and abuses; our sense of fair play which dictates 'a fair state-individual balance by requiring the government to leave the individual alone until good cause is shown for disturbing him and by requiring the government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load, . . .'; our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave where he may lead a private life,' . . . , our distrust of self- deprecatory statement; and our realization that the privilege, while sometimes 'a shelter to the guilty,' is often 'a protection to the innocent.'''

The Prime Investigator of Filmnoir likes the clarity and tone of this bill, but takes issue with the passage about allowing the accused to not incriminate him- or herself.

Is this really in the interest of the greater good? Would it not, perhaps, be in the greater interest to demand that the accused supply all the information that he or she knows, under penalty of perjury, so that the court system be allowed to function to its greatest extent?

If one's guiltiness is so bluntly obvious that even the accused do not believe their own lies, that should make the court proceedings pretty quick even without a announcement of self-incrimination.

*snip*Look, you can blab all you like about the ramifications of prejudicial speech; the fact of the matter is, Free Expression Act gives states and states alone the latitude to set restrictions on public speech. It gives the WA no such power. To thereafter grant the World Assembly such a role constitutes a direct contradiction in my book.

As the resolution (as far as I can see) fails to define "prejudicial," it is difficult to know what line one must cross before his or her remarks can be construed as actively harmful to jurisprudence. I was reacting more to the author's stated intent (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14532171&postcount=62) for the language, which I took to mean active censorship of the media.

Look, you can blab all you like about the ramifications of prejudicial speech; the fact of the matter is, Free Expression Act gives states and states alone the latitude to set restrictions on public speech. It gives the WA no such power. To thereafter grant the World Assembly such a role constitutes a direct contradiction in my book.

As the resolution (as far as I can see) fails to define "prejudicial," it is difficult to know what line one must cross before his or her remarks can be construed as actively harmful to jurisprudence. I was reacting more to the author's stated intent (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14532171&postcount=62) for the language, which I took to mean active censorship of the media.

Your assertions assume that, rather than articulate why, this resolution violates the Free Expression Act. Let me try again to explain why that is nonsense.

First, are you really going to contend that the Freedom of Expression Act gives an absolute right to any and all expression that is not specifically controlled by a nation under the exceptions of "defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials"? If that is truly the case, then -- although I admire the Freedom of Expression Act, give you kudos for authoring it, and very strongly support free expression -- should be repealed.

Face it: "[T]he right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly" does not mean that anyone can say anything, anytime, any place, in any manner. Reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression don't violate this right. Do I really have to provide examples of how absurd the Act would be otherwise?

I am NOT saying that "free and open" expression can be denied, only that denying expression in some contexts does not equate to denying "free and open" expression.

Second, regardless of how you may have interpreted the author's remarks, the provisions of the resolution limit a very narrow category of speech. The resolution itself provides trials are open to the public -- except for the possible exception of specific evidence that would risk national security. Widespread reporting -- even deeply biased or sensational reporting -- about trials, defendants, etc, is still protected by freedom of expression. It is only in that very, very small area where absolute free expression would deprive the defendant of a fair trial that expression may be limited.

Many nations, including The Cat-Tribe, value both a defendant's rights and the right to free expression. Reconciling these two values is not difficult as the later is presumed to prevail except in very limited and extreme circumstances.

If the Ambassador has some other reason for opposing this resolution, so be it. We'd like to hear it. But the "it violates the Freedom of Expression Act" mantra is unconvincing -- at least to us.

OCC: If this resolution truly "directly contradict[s]" the Free Expression Act, shouldn't you be arguing to the Mods that is illegal? I think we both know why you aren't taking that route.

First, are you really going to contend that the Freedom of Expression Act gives an absolute right to any and all expression that is not specifically controlled by a nation under the exceptions of "defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials"?No.

Face it: "[T]he right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly" does not mean that anyone can say anything, anytime, any place, in any manner. Reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression don't violate this right.Yes, but only nations may set those restrictions, not the WA. Or has that part just not set with you yet?

OCC: If this resolution truly "directly contradict[s]" the Free Expression Act, shouldn't you be arguing to the Mods that is illegal? I think we both know why you aren't taking that route.Right, because it's already at vote and it's too late for the mods to do anything about it. Happy to see you're learning.

No.

Good. Then you should recognize that your argument is flawed.

Yes, but only nations may set those restrictions, not the WA. Or has that part just not set with you yet?

1. Where does the Freedom of Expression Act say that? By my reading it says nothing whatsoever about time, place, manner, and other similar "restrictions."

2. My point is that some things may be expressions without limits upon them necessarily being restrictions on "free and open expression." Such things aren't part of the right to free and open expression to begin with, so they aren't addressed by the Freedom of Expression Act.

3. For those that aren't following my point, let me give some examples. Does the Freedom of Expression Act protect the following "free and open" expressions "without fear of reprisal"?

A judge starting a trial by telling the jury the defendant is guilty and the trial is a waste of time.

A civil servant telling his boss that he is an idiot who can "buzz off."

Screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre

A public school teacher teaching children creationism and belief in the One True God.

A lobbyist "donating" money to an official in exchange for a vote

Distributing fake ballots during an election

Telling an underlying to rob a bank

Ordering a teller to hand over the cash or die


These are just a few examples off the top of my head. I can come up with more to illustrate my point if necessary.

Right, because it's already at vote and it's too late for the mods to do anything about it. Happy to see you're learning.

I apologize if I am mistaken and I admit I didn't realize illegal resolutions can be passed if they slip by until they are at vote, but I was under the impression you joined this thread with your "contradicts the Freedom of Expression Act" argument before this resolution was up for vote.

A judge starting a trial by telling the jury the defendant is guilty and the trial is a waste of time.
A civil servant telling his boss that he is an idiot who can "buzz off."
Screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre
A public school teacher teaching children creationism and belief in the One True God.
A lobbyist "donating" money to an official in exchange for a vote
Distributing fake ballots during an election
Telling an underlying to rob a bank
Ordering a teller to hand over the cash or die

These are just a few examples off the top of my head. I can come up with more to illustrate my point if necessary.


I'd have to take another look at the Freedom of Expression act.

But there's always got to be a drawback to a resolution. This is Politics. Not a Dream.

1. Where does the Freedom of Expression Act say that? By my reading it says nothing whatsoever about time, place, manner, and other similar "restrictions."Well, in short, it affirms the right absolutely, then it requires member states to protect it for all individuals "in all available media." It does not then say "The WA may revise and/or modify this freedom as circumstances require"; it only states that nations are "allowed" to set reasonable restrictions -- not that they are required to, not that future resolutions may require them to. The way WA resolutions work, resolutions cannot be amended, and contradicting past resolutions is disallowed. That means, you cannot affirm something absolutely and then attempt to modify it later on. That ship has sailed.

I won't bother addressing the rest of your point, since you are essentially preaching to the choir that free speech is not absolute. Which is why FEA allows for restrictions set by nations. Only it does not mandate them, and this resolution certainly cannot force them to.

Given the number of abominable newspaper articles we have seen concerning President Fernanda which have subsequently been proved false -- usually through a grievous undercounting of the number of hookers present -- we are mildly surprised that the Federal Repulic has taken this position. We would maintain however that "prejudicial" is a common English word with an obvious meaning that resonates clearly with court cases -- "before or without judgement." Journalists are extremely rarely in possession of the full facts of a case before a trial has finished, but that rarely stops them from considering an accused person of being guilty. Even those with the basic honour to have not invented their "facts" wholesale would find it difficult to uphold the level of evidentiary integrity we would expect of a trial. Even the simple level that is mandated in this proposal is not something one could reasonable expect -- how many editorial writers cross-examine themselves in print, after all?

We have no objection to editorialists and opinion-formers having opinions. That is what they are paid for, after all. We do object most strenuously to them presenting those opinions as fact in a manner likely to influence a jury. The media are in a priviledged position where it is nearly impossible to gainsay them, and to apply that priviledge as thoughtlessly as most do is unacceptable.

*sigh*

I may owe The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny an apology.

I don't think your resolution as written violates the Freedom of Expression Act for the reasons I have taken pains to explain, but you seem hell-bent on saying that your resolution is, in fact, a broad and illegal restraint on the press.

I beg you to reconsider your words. A very narrow limitation on prejudicial public discussion during a trial is acceptable -- a general gag order or an prohibition against "untrue" statements is not acceptable.

I'd have to take another look at the Freedom of Expression act.

But there's always got to be a drawback to a resolution. This is Politics. Not a Dream.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the Freedom of Expression Act.

My only contention is that it does not conflict with the proposed resolution for Fairness in Criminal Trials.

Neither resolution can be expected to work perfectly everywhere all the time, but that excuse can be used to oppose any and all WA legislation.

The honorable delegation of the People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan opposes this resolution, and pleads with its fellow brother nations to examine the flawed proposal before us more closely. Clearly this resolution will undermine the efficiency and fairness of criminal prosecutions in our homelands; while the resolution in question does provide a clause mandating transparency in trials, it then contradicts itself by wrapping up judicial proceedings in bureaucratic red tape.
Please excuse our brevity, but it was not possible to discurse at length upon the reasons for limiting the full openness of trials within the confines of the proposal itself. Historical discussion during the drafting of this proposal's predecessor focused on the harmful effects of total transparency on both national security and the religious rites which in some nations surround trials, however the specific examples the ambassador sets out below have a more personal impact, and we appreciate the opportunity to elucidate our thinking.

For by allowing suspects and witnesses to deliberately withold information from the people under the banner of "protection from self-incrimination,"
This protection is only afforded to the accused, and on reflection that was likely an oversight. The point is that there must be some limits set on what questioning is permitted, otherwise the trial becomes an exercise in public invasion of privacy. We are well aware of the manner in which careful legal professionals can argue -- often perfectly honestly -- that the most unlikely lines of questioning are possibly relevant, and then simply happen to drag the accused's reputation through the mud on the way to discovering that they aren't. Thus the power is left with the accused; using is a two-edged sword, though, since a refusal to answer will raise questions in the minds of listening jurors.

[...] and in some cases concealing witnesses identities when such information could prove crucial to the trial,
This is only possible where the judge concurs that the witness is otherwise endangered or subject to coercion. Nations which currently employ such schemes commonly do so to avoid placing undue strain on rape victims giving witness against their alledged attacker, though its use to protect the life of a spy should not be underestimated.

The representative of Kosmoland admires Gobbanium's ambassador's proposal. It is admirable in its justice. But the debate was advanced with the citizens of Kosmoland, and some want to add something that appears natural to us: although it is a duty to know the law, the citizens of Kosmoland consider that the foreigners who come to visit the country cannot know all the degrees of the laws in our country. In case of a crime proven by a foreigner, " Our judging council" takes into account the fact that he might have not known that law and is ready to lighten the sentence if not let the person go for that reason. We understand that much countries are more severe than us, but we hope all the same that this question will be taken into account by the worthy members of this assembly.
We made a conscious decision not to deal with the subject of sentencing in this resolution, honoured ambassador. Past experience suggests that it is a complex issue fully worth of a resolution to itself, and we were well aware of the pressure of space within this resolution. Past experience also suggests that it is a subject that evokes strong emotions in a variety of directions, as evidenced by the regularity of proposals attempting to ban or mandate the death penalty. If the ambassador wishes to tread the delicate path of drafting a resolution on the subject we would be delighted to offer what help we can.

Look, you can blab all you like about the ramifications of prejudicial speech; the fact of the matter is, Free Expression Act gives states and states alone the latitude to set restrictions on public speech. It gives the WA no such power. To thereafter grant the World Assembly such a role constitutes a direct contradiction in my book.
It signally fails to remove such a power from the WA, however. The Free Expression Act says that nations may institute restriction on speech in carefully defined areas. This proposal says that in a small subset of those areas, for a tightly defined period of time, that "may" becomes a "must". There is neither contradiction nor duplication here.

As the resolution (as far as I can see) fails to define "prejudicial," it is difficult to know what line one must cross before his or her remarks can be construed as actively harmful to jurisprudence. I was reacting more to the author's stated intent (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14532171&postcount=62) for the language, which I took to mean active censorship of the media.
Given the number of abominable newspaper articles we have seen concerning President Fernanda which have subsequently been proved false -- usually through a grievous undercounting of the number of hookers present -- we are mildly surprised that the Federal Repulic has taken this position. We would maintain however that "prejudicial" is a common English word with an obvious meaning that resonates clearly with court cases -- "before or without judgement." Journalists are extremely rarely in possession of the full facts of a case before a trial has finished, but that rarely stops them from considering an accused person of being guilty. Even those with the basic honour to have not invented their "facts" wholesale would find it difficult to uphold the level of evidentiary integrity we would expect of a trial. Even the simple level that is mandated in this proposal is not something one could reasonable expect -- how many editorial writers cross-examine themselves in print, after all?

We have no objection to editorialists and opinion-formers having opinions. That is what they are paid for, after all. We do object most strenuously to them presenting those opinions as fact in a manner likely to influence a jury. The media are in a priviledged position where it is nearly impossible to gainsay them, and to apply that priviledge as thoughtlessly as most do is unacceptable.

Well, in short, it affirms the right absolutely, then it requires member states to protect it for all individuals "in all available media." It does not then say "The WA may revise and/or modify this freedom as circumstances require"; it only states that nations are "allowed" to set reasonable restrictions -- not that they are required to, not that future resolutions may require them to. The way WA resolutions work, resolutions cannot be amended, and contradicting past resolutions is disallowed. That means, you cannot affirm something absolutely and then attempt to modify it later on. That ship has sailed.

I won't bother addressing the rest of your point, since you are essentially preaching to the choir that free speech is not absolute. Which is why FEA allows for restrictions set by nations. Only it does not mandate them, and this resolution certainly cannot force them to.

I'm going to stop banging my head against this particular wall, but you just said a few posts ago that the FEA does NOT affirm the right absolutely. Now you say it does. Which is it?

*sigh*

I may owe The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny an apology.

I don't think your resolution as written violates the Freedom of Expression Act for the reasons I have taken pains to explain, but you seem hell-bent on saying that your resolution is, in fact, a broad and illegal restraint on the press.

I beg you to reconsider your words. A very narrow limitation on prejudicial public discussion during a trial is acceptable -- a general gag order or an prohibition against "untrue" statements is not acceptable.
You are entirely correct, ambassador, all this resolution does is forbid attempts, intentional or not, to influence the decision of the jury (let us say it is a jury for brevity's sake) outside the confines of the trial by means of discussion. Reporters may print what they will as long as they avoid pre-judging the outcome or poisoning the neutrality of the jury. Our rant above merely expresses our belief that you will have greater luck finding teeth on hens than such a reporter.

It signally fails to remove such a power from the WA, however. The Free Expression Act says that nations may institute restriction on speech in carefully defined areas. This proposal says that in a small subset of those areas, for a tightly defined period of time, that "may" becomes a "must". There is neither contradiction nor duplication here.


Given the number of abominable newspaper articles we have seen concerning President Fernanda which have subsequently been proved false -- usually through a grievous undercounting of the number of hookers present -- we are mildly surprised that the Federal Repulic has taken this position. We would maintain however that "prejudicial" is a common English word with an obvious meaning that resonates clearly with court cases -- "before or without judgement." Journalists are extremely rarely in possession of the full facts of a case before a trial has finished, but that rarely stops them from considering an accused person of being guilty. Even those with the basic honour to have not invented their "facts" wholesale would find it difficult to uphold the level of evidentiary integrity we would expect of a trial. Even the simple level that is mandated in this proposal is not something one could reasonable expect -- how many editorial writers cross-examine themselves in print, after all?

We have no objection to editorialists and opinion-formers having opinions. That is what they are paid for, after all. We do object most strenuously to them presenting those opinions as fact in a manner likely to influence a jury. The media are in a priviledged position where it is nearly impossible to gainsay them, and to apply that priviledge as thoughtlessly as most do is unacceptable.




We find ourselves, not unusually, in complete agreement with the esteemed and honoured Ambassador for Gobbannium.

Free speech does not mean the right to pollute the minds of jurists or those serving on juries with false or misleading ideas concerning the innocence or guilt of an accused person.

In a world in which many states practice judicial murder, it is extremely important to offer innocent people every protection from the possibility of calumny and false accusation.

We see no conflict of any kind with the freedom of expression statute, which in any case makes provision for exactly this kind of thing.


Yours e.t.c. ,

I the Holy Dictator of the Holy Empire of Gran Intramuros believe that the said legislature is good, in fact beneficiary for the attainment of equality and fair trial. However, nations must have the first say in trials. Prejudices let us face it, can't be removed from every nation's culture. Therefore, fair judgment should not be compulsory but rather something which is decided upon by each nation.

I belive accepting this will raise the respect of The World Assembly. After all is that not what we are here for? To premote Human rights.

You are entirely correct, ambassador, all this resolution does is forbid attempts, intentional or not, to influence the decision of the jury (let us say it is a jury for brevity's sake) outside the confines of the trial by means of discussion. Reporters may print what they will as long as they avoid pre-judging the outcome or poisoning the neutrality of the jury. Our rant above merely expresses our belief that you will have greater luck finding teeth on hens than such a reporter.

Thank you for the clarification.

Although we may disagree about the general quality and value of the press, I agree that there is a danger from prejudicial discussions that would influence the trial decision-maker.

The Ambassador from the Federal Republic may be being dismissive of such concerns, but it is not clear he actually disagrees that prejudicial communications are harmful and should be stopped. Instead, his argument is a technical one that such prejudice can't be stopped by the World Assembly. I've already explained why I disagree with that and your reassurance confirms my position.

Keep up the good work in favor of a worthwhile resolution.

I belive accepting this will raise the respect of The World Assembly. After all is that not what we are here for? To premote Human rights.No, I'm here to do my part in making sure that the WA respects National Sovereignty.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Keep your rights to yourself. People have too many rights as it is. I don;t need the WA running my courts

Money is what gives people power, it should for the right price also give power over the law. If anything you should remove Diplomatic Immunity, it is a free ticket to do whatever you want.

My nation is against this bill, wholeheartedly.

Money is what gives people power, it should for the right price also give power over the law. If anything you should remove Diplomatic Immunity, it is a free ticket to do whatever you want.

My nation is against this bill, wholeheartedly.


This seemingly randomly collated group of sentences means what, honoured Ambassador ?

Your nation is opposed to this statute because.... ?

No, I'm here to do my part in making sure that the WA respects National Sovereignty.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Captain Dawson leapt to the top of his desk and began to orate.

I be here to......I be here to.....

He looked over to WYMP.

Why do I be here?

"You're here to help restore order in the Disputed Territories of Blasted Pirates" said WYMP.

Dawson shook his head "no." WYMP shook his head "yes." Dawsone shook his head harder "NO." WYMP shook his head harder "YES."

ARR!!! We be doing no such thing, Blasted Pirates be voting AGAINST. Ya got too many words, and the be words like "fairness" and "criminals." There not be any "arr's" in there, ya can't have a strong proposal without an ARR. And what about pistols at dawn, or walking the plank or shooting then asking later? And where be the clause for rum? Where's all the rum gone?

He jumped down and sat in his chair while he rummaged through his desk to find his private stash. He found the bottle took a few heavy swallows and fell over backwards in his chair.

As a new member of the WA, I am agreeing with the proposal. Trials should be fair, and not ajourned until the jury is 100% sure that the convicted is what the jury verdicts. Sending truly innocent civilians to prison, or any time of lawful punishment cannot continue. We have to put a stop to this and justify this travesty as soon as possible. I can see why so many people have voted for this proposal. My greatest thanks to our ambassadors for choosing the right descision. It is clear that the proposal will be finalized.
With Regards
Lord Dargon, Insane Masterminds Leader, Newest member of the WA

Despite our non-voting status in this assembly, the Dangjin Huangshang has accepted the decision of the Imperial Council to issue a decree in support of this fine legislation, and to introduce aspects of its legislation in our own legal proceedings.

The Dangjin Huangshang further issues His personal congratulations to the Gobbanaean delegation on the most recent vote tallies.

Li Hongzhang
Foreign Minister
Wàiwùbù shàngshū

After all is that not what we are here for? To premote Human rights.No.

our nation votes against this resolution, if it forbids prejudicial public discussion of a trial then we will not agree with this resolution since this would disturb the freedom of speech.

This legislation seems in order, but I can't agree to all terms. especially:
"REQUIRES that the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial"
This completely undermines the court system of my country!

We the government of Churchriech do not endorse this piece of legislation and plea with others to stand against this. The passing of this legislation would allow for a corrupt legal system, similar to other nations, and would increase the crime rate. Criminals would find that if they can get out of something they are more likely to commit a crime. By veto this legislation, every government would benefit. An Iron Fist Criminal Justice system is the most fool-proof way of avoiding trouble.
Though we are a young nation Churchriech has a very low crime rate as most citizens respect the laws. Though this may sound immoral, fear of having no way out of the trouble they have caused keeps them in line and brings out a respect for their government. I plea that this legislation does not pass for the good of all nations.
I am though proud to endorse the delegate of my home region of Kochia, who has voted against this vile legislation. May Kochia flourish under our fledgling status.

This legislation seems in order, but I can't agree to all terms. especially:
"REQUIRES that the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial"
This completely undermines the court system of my country!

We the government of Churchriech do not endorse this piece of legislation and plea with others to stand against this. The passing of this legislation would allow for a corrupt legal system, similar to other nations, and would increase the crime rate. Criminals would find that if they can get out of something they are more likely to commit a crime. By veto this legislation, every government would benefit. An Iron Fist Criminal Justice system is the most fool-proof way of avoiding trouble.
Though we are a young nation Churchriech has a very low crime rate as most citizens respect the laws. Though this may sound immoral, fear of having no way out of the trouble they have caused keeps them in line and brings out a respect for their government. I plea that this legislation does not pass for the good of all nations.
I am though proud to endorse the delegate of my home region of Kochia, who has voted against this vile legislation. May Kochia flourish under our fledgling status.

It is unfortunate that you believe that an unfair judicial system is necessary to control crime. Admittedly recognizing the rights of defendants may sometimes result in the guilty going free, but it also protects the innocent from being convicted and every citizen from tyranny. A nation can have an effective criminal justice system without it being draconian.

What I feel is more unfortunate is that legislators from other nations can choose how my country is ran without understanding the goals of the country as a whole.

What I feel is more unfortunate is that legislators from other nations can choose how my country is ran without understanding the goals of the country as a whole.

Welcome to the World Assembly. Membership is optional. :wink:

We the government of Churchriech do not endorse this piece of legislation and plea with others to stand against this. The passing of this legislation would allow for a corrupt legal system, similar to other nations, and would increase the crime rate. Criminals would find that if they can get out of something they are more likely to commit a crime. By veto this legislation, every government would benefit. An Iron Fist Criminal Justice system is the most fool-proof way of avoiding trouble.
Though we are a young nation Churchriech has a very low crime rate as most citizens respect the laws. Though this may sound immoral, fear of having no way out of the trouble they have caused keeps them in line and brings out a respect for their government. I plea that this legislation does not pass for the good of all nations.
I am though proud to endorse the delegate of my home region of Kochia, who has voted against this vile legislation. May Kochia flourish under our fledgling status.

The Ambassador echoes, albeit in a quite unwieldy and un-nuanced fashion, the belief of the ancient fajia thinkers, that the people must be kept in line with strict laws to protect the state. It is no mistake that Shang Yang, a fajia thinker, was torn apart by horses as punishment for crimes created by his enemies; a great irony.

Fear of the law is fear of the ruler; but when the rulers are the people themselves how can there be fear? When fairness and justice abounds, how can there be fear in the state? Those that have recourse in the courts will be content when they know the proceedings will be fair. As Master Kong said, "the superior man is aware of righteousness, the inferior man is aware of advantage." The state composed of superior men will endure, since they will observe justice and fairness. The Dangjin Huangshang is a superior man because he leaves the affairs of government to superior men, therefore justice prevails in the Great Jin State. How can laws ensuring fairness be unfair?

What I feel is more unfortunate is that legislators from other nations can choose how my country is ran without understanding the goals of the country as a whole.

The goal of the state is to promote harmony, peace, and prosperity in all-under-Heaven. Fairness and justice ensure harmony and peace; those who are at peace may prosper. How then can fairness harm the state? All-under-Heaven is ordered when the people are secure in their position; how can justice not achieve this?

Lǐ Hóngzhāng
Foreign Minister
Wàiwùbù shàngshū

Keep your rights to yourself. People have too many rights as it is. I don;t need the WA running my courts
The WA is not foolish enough to run your courts, honoured ambassador, at least not in this proposal. If you believe the broad limits that we put on the way that you run your courts to be intolerable, then clearly your correct course of action is to vote against. We would thank you all the same for your refreshing honesty -- few people seem willing to express the belief that they do not care whether or not courts are run fairly. Not that we believe for a moment that all those who oppose this resolution are of such a mind, naturally, but we find ourself unaccountably cheered that someone should say it.

Money is what gives people power, it should for the right price also give power over the law.
We find this statement utterly abhorrent, by contrast.

If anything you should remove Diplomatic Immunity, it is a free ticket to do whatever you want.
Only if you choose to countersign that ticket, ambassador. We personally recommend that you do so sparingly.

ARR!!! We be doing no such thing, Blasted Pirates be voting AGAINST. Ya got too many words, [...]
We confess to a weakness for verbosity, respected captain, which regrettably left us with insufficient space to slip an "Arr" into the resulting text. Even had the request been made of us during the drafting stage...

Prince Rhodri breaks off as Cerys mutters something in his ear. He peers over at the distant Blasted Pirate table, and has a short argument with his aide during which the words "just resting his eyes" are briefly audible.

Very well. In deference to the honoured captain's concerns over rum, we are sending over a bottle of Captain Morgan ap Henri's finest.

Despite our non-voting status in this assembly, the Dangjin Huangshang has accepted the decision of the Imperial Council to issue a decree in support of this fine legislation, and to introduce aspects of its legislation in our own legal proceedings.

The Dangjin Huangshang further issues His personal congratulations to the Gobbanaean delegation on the most recent vote tallies.
We thank Minister Li for the kind words he has conveyed to us. We admit that we have been simultaneously gratified and disconcerted by the most recent tallies that we have seen.

our nation votes against this resolution, if it forbids prejudicial public discussion of a trial then we will not agree with this resolution since this would disturb the freedom of speech.
The operative word is "prejudicial", we would ask the honoured ambassador to note. Discussions that would taint the outcome of a trial are in our opinion very expensive.

We the government of Churchriech do not endorse this piece of legislation and plea with others to stand against this. The passing of this legislation would allow for a corrupt legal system, similar to other nations, and would increase the crime rate.
We would be more inclined to pay heed to the honoured ambassador's words if they offered any reasoning to justify these extraordinary claims.

Criminals would find that if they can get out of something they are more likely to commit a crime.
We find this statement particularly baffling, since not only does it work from an unsupported premise, but it also reverses the traditional notions of cause and effect.

Very well. In deference to the honoured captain's concerns over rum, we are sending over a bottle of Captain Morgan ap Henri's finest.




William Young Manley Peterson, AKA WYMP, rose to address the Gobbannium delegation

I'm sure the Captain will be most pleased to accept this token of gratitude. He is one for the spirits, if only he would finally become one himself. I'm afraid I can't vote on behalf of my captors, I mean nation. But perhaps the Captain will change his mind once he's finished marinating in his own sauce. I will add this to his collection.

WYMP reached down to the secret drawer under the desk and opened it to the sound of a wind chime as the bottles clanked against each other. Of course this was enough to rouse the Captain, who then took another swig from his bottle and passed out again.

Based on regional vote, the Trilateral Federation has cast its vote against this resolution.

-Irina Misheli, Acting Ambassador

{We would be more inclined to pay heed to the honoured ambassador's words if they offered any reasoning to justify these extraordinary claims.}

You're telling me that you don't see murderers and rapists walking away scott-free from a trial when they are truly guilty and they use money to contral and sway things into their favor? This system is not perfect as the system I have adopted is also imperfect. Regardless, if justice is being served through my process than I can accept that. I would rather have total contral preventing crimes rather than to allow people a chance to weasel their way out of the trouble they have caused.

{We would be more inclined to pay heed to the honoured ambassador's words if they offered any reasoning to justify these extraordinary claims.}

You're telling me that you don't see murderers and rapists walking away scott-free from a trial when they are truly guilty and they use money to contral and sway things into their favor? This system is not perfect as the system I have adopted is also imperfect. Regardless, if justice is being served through my process than I can accept that. I would rather have total contral preventing crimes rather than to allow people a chance to weasel their way out of the trouble they have caused.



This is gibberish, honoured Ambassador, and we think secretly even you know that.


Yours,

{We would be more inclined to pay heed to the honoured ambassador's words if they offered any reasoning to justify these extraordinary claims.}

You're telling me that you don't see murderers and rapists walking away scott-free from a trial when they are truly guilty and they use money to contral and sway things into their favor? This system is not perfect as the system I have adopted is also imperfect. Regardless, if justice is being served through my process than I can accept that. I would rather have total contral preventing crimes rather than to allow people a chance to weasel their way out of the trouble they have caused.

The law of the Great Jin State precludes the bribery of officials; it is punishable by death to bribe or influence officials of the court- for both the criminal and the magistrate. What fairness can there be when the judge is prejudiced? When the people know the law, they know the consequences, yet it is unreasonable to assume the people will always honor it. When the law is violated, their guilt must be proven before their punishment assured; how can unfairness be allowed in this regard?

To upset the balance of justice is a crime in its own right; how can the criminal who subverts the court be considered innocent? The Great Jin punishes such people.


Lǐ Hóngzhāng
Foreign Minister
Wàiwùbù shàngshū

Er, voting was supposed to have ended at least two hours ago, wasn't it?

So it was, how queer ?


Yours,

You're telling me that you don't see murderers and rapists walking away scott-free from a trial when they are truly guilty and they use money to contral and sway things into their favor?
Yes, honoured ambassador, we are telling you exactly that. The crime rate in Gobbannium is sufficiently low that we can be confident that we are telling the unvarnished truth when we say it. It is an offence to attempt to pervert the course of justice, and a greater offence for an official to succumb to such temptation. All allegations of such offences, from no matter what quarter, are investigated with great seriousness.

This system is not perfect as the system I have adopted is also imperfect. Regardless, if justice is being served through my process than I can accept that. I would rather have total contral preventing crimes rather than to allow people a chance to weasel their way out of the trouble they have caused.
The problem is that you do not have total control. Free will still exists, and that will always damn attempts at injustice such as you appear to desire to perpetrate. Recall this, honoured ambassador: if you do not care for fairness in a trial, you have no certainty at all the the person you are so joyfully punishing is guilty. Your haste to punish anyone rather than the right person can but lead to internal dissent.

Er, voting was supposed to have ended at least two hours ago, wasn't it?
Maybe the server had a fit and delayed the update -- it was behaving a bit oddly yesterday at one point.

Oh well, it's over now. Phew.

Oh well, it's over now. Phew.

And I offer the fine Ambassador my sincere congratulations on a job well done. :hail:

What I feel is more unfortunate is that legislators from other nations can choose how my country is ran without understanding the goals of the country as a whole.

And this, ladies and gentlemen (and the Kennyites), is why I'm a Sovereigntist.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

And this, ladies and gentlemen (and the Kennyites), is why I'm a Sovereigntist.

It may surprise you to know that we concur with the sentiment that provoked this comment, but not the conclusion. Any legislator at any level of government who fails to bear in mind the diverse nature of the constituency they govern is doomed to failure; the World Assembly is not a special case of this, merely a larger one that is normally encountered.