NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "The Right to a Fair Trial"

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #3

Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy

Description: WA Resolution #3: The Right to a Fair Trial (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Understanding that the intended purpose of "The Right to a Fair Trial" is to provide fair trials,

Noting that the resolution fails to understand that the WA is composed of wildly divergent cultures in its description of a "Fair Trial",

Also noting that the resolution fails to take into account that certain nations have long-established non-jury judicial systems of unquestioned integrity,

Regretting that the resolution allows defendants to choose any person to represent them, despite the legal ramifications of possible conflicts of interest,

Further regretting that the resolution allows defendants any number of appeals they wish,

Noting that this flawed legislation bars a more effective resolution from passage,

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more effective version of this resolution to the World Assembly,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "The Right to a Fair Trial".

Here we go. The Narnian Council have several times voiced their commitment to getting their original and much better version of this resolution into law.

Mistakes were made, and blame never helped anyone:

Lets fix things.

Hey that's pretty cool resolution. If passed, it allows us to make a fresh new version. Great work!

Hey that's pretty cool resolution. If passed, it allows us to make a fresh new version....

Or to leave this topic up to individual nations to carry out how they see fit. :)

Congratulations, Ambassador! We wish you luck in the ensuing debate, and note that despite the original motion sitting reasonably well with Gobbannaen law, we will be supporting your repeal.

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota is pleased to note that this proposal has reached quorum, and pledges its lone vote in its support. We will also contact our regional delegate and lobby in favor of this proposal. Congratulations, Ambassador, and thank you.

We're very glad to have gained the support of The Dourian Embassy in this movement, and we'll be submitting the Fair Criminal Trial replacement shortly, in expectation of this repeal's success!

Prince Rhrodri of Gobbannium…we see that you’ve posted your own attempt at replacement. You were well aware that I have intended to do this for some months now…I’d like to see if you have a valid reason for attempting to rob someone of his hard earned success and gain 'glory' for yourself?

In fact, please don’t answer that. I already have a good estimate of your dubious character to know…and yet again, I’m not surprised at your rather arrogant move.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

In fact, please don’t answer that. I already have a good estimate of your dubious character to know…and yet again, I’m not surprised at your rather arrogant move.

I've got a big ole' batch of "not here" for you guys. Gob hasn't replied just yet, but lets nip this in the bud now, there are two threads you can take this too, yours or his, I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not put it in my repeal thread.

Yes, I want yours to pass, but at the same time I am primarily interested in ensuring this repeal passes so ANY worthy legislation can replace it. I have the utmost confidence in you, Narnian, that you can live up to your responsibility AFTER the repeal.

But disputes on that topic, are left to you. Bump your own topic and discuss there, or discuss in his new one.

Thanks in advance.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden would be strongly supporting this repeal. We would be working in our own region to in order to pass this repeal.

Thank you.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli
Royal Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the World Assembly

Ok that is the stupidest law :upyours: :headbang: :sniper: and I don't get the point :confused:

everybody vote no on the repeal the right to a fair trail:cool: ;)

It must be admitted that the current Resolution on the right to fair trial contains a great number of miscarriages.
On the other hand - it anyway prevents the minimal rights of accused people from being abused. If we repeal the Resolution by this Draft Resolution, we will have a gap in time when no legal act protects the accused people in the whole world. This would lead to a terrible disaster and to severe violations of human rights in many countries, which would not be bound by any legal norm in such case.

Therefore it is necessary to pass such A Resolution which would not only repeal the current Resolution, but would also contain the text of a new, improved wording of the Right to fair trial. Or at least some minimal Standards for the protection of human rights should be provided for in the Repealing Resolution, until the new, more detailed regulation will be passed.

On these grounds the Free Land of Lesser Shades proposes to vote agains the Repealing Resolution, unless the minimal standards for the protection of human rights in the period of non-existance of any Resolution are guaranteed.

I would sincerely appreciate it if you did not put it in my repeal thread.

*Bows gracefully*

My apologies, Ambassador Willing...entirely understandable.

And congratulations on reaching quorum. Currently standing in favor at 2:1, I've good faith the repeal will result in success!

Wait a while...then try for repeal. The ride will be smoother then. Like I said, this summer sometime.

Hopefully an accurate prediction.
__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It must be admitted that the current Resolution on the right to fair trial contains a great number of miscarriages.
On the other hand - it anyway prevents the minimal rights of accused people from being abused. If we repeal the Resolution by this Draft Resolution, we will have a gap in time when no legal act protects the accused people in the whole world. This would lead to a terrible disaster and to severe violations of human rights in many countries, which would not be bound by any legal norm in such case.
1. Of course your country has its own laws ensuring the right to a fair trial, yes? If so, then you will use them in that "gap in time". If you don't, then shame on you, you're the inspiration for the crap we're trying to repeal.
2. The World Assembly does not span the whole world, only its member states. So whatever this assembly passes, it won't affect the entire whole wide world.
3. Despite these, we believe that the advantage of having a better, more reasonable, and more effective legislation far outweighs the "disadvantage" entailed by that short anticipated "gap in time".

Therefore it is necessary to pass such A Resolution which would not only repeal the current Resolution, but would also contain the text of a new, improved wording of the Right to fair trial. Or at least some minimal Standards for the protection of human rights should be provided for in the Repealing Resolution, until the new, more detailed regulation will be passed.
AFAIK, you cannot repeal and pass something in one resolution. A repeal is a repeal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465), nothing more, nothing less.

Can someone direct me to where the replacement resolution is being made and discussed?

I very much need to know what will replace this before I support its repeal.

TIA.

the government of the emperor of urgench, wishes to associate itself with the remarks of the delegate for pure thought. we have read an alternative proposal elsewhere which is extremely cogent, we believe there are others, we would very much like to read those too.



yours e.t.c. Mongkha. khan of kashgar, minister for foreign affairs of urgench

I have voted for this motion to be passed so that countries can work together to create a new piece of legestration which all countries can then support.

In my country of Porkscratching if someone is seen to be creating graffitti on walls then the police are called and then they go to jail. This is because I don't and will not tolerate any anti social act such as that.

Can someone direct me to where the replacement resolution is being made and discussed?

I very much need to know what will replace this before I support its repeal.Well, you only have five days before the vote closes, so you'll have to make a gamble on whether the replacement will be Gobbannaen (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374) or Narnian (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553997) in form. Maybe you should just vote on the merits of the original and the validity of the repeal argument?

I have voted for this resolution. It makes sense, in the fact that different people have different opinions on what a fair trial is. It should be rewritten to be more controlled and defined.

I am in support of this repeal, though I also feel that there must be some sort of legislature in regards to fair trials. However, as many peoples have opposing views on what is a fair trial, and what rights an individual is entitled to, the matter must not be simply swept away.

The government of the WSK would like to state that there is no possible way that we will support this resolution. The guise of the "diversity of governmental systems" argument is not going to fool us. This is a resolution that seeks to undermine the judicial system by advocating unfair trials that will only benefit oppressive governments.

We cannot let blatantly oppressive government style countries dominate the WA and allow for unethical resolutions such as this to be passed. We will only erode the good that the WA originally intended for.

We should let this resolution pass and immeadiately for a new proposal that greatly improves our current courts. It is a good solution, and will enhance, not detract, from out court system.

The People's Republic of Inca Kolastan, reaffirming its support for the rights of states to self-determination as well as the protection of basic human rights, has broken with our regional delegate to vote in favour of this resolution. While the definition of a fair trial put forward in the initial resolution broadly accords with our own, we feel that it is far too prescriptive in the requirements imposed upon countries with distinct cultural and political traditions that make up the World Assembly. Inca Kolastan will gladly consider alternative frameworks put forward by other nations.

Suessitonia agrees with the concept of the repeal, however, without any knowledge of a plan to replace the current procedures, we cannot vote in favor of repealing the current legislation in regards to the right to a fair trial. If a competent and explicative plan may be presented, Suessitonia will strongly consider switching it's current vote against the repeal.

As we currently stand, the right to a fair trail process, though flawed, is still better than no rights to a fair trial.

As we understand there has been a proposed new plan, however, at this time this replacement seems to be unavailable for all to view it at this time.

As we understand there has been a proposed new plan, however, at this time this replacement seems to be unavailable for all to view it at this time.

Expecting this repeal to be a success, this proposal has been pre-arranged to stand as the replacement Fair Trial resolution:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558466

This is the proposal that South Oceana's originally came up against, and hopefully this week it'll gain as much support as it did back in April.
_______________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The Feifdom of Furlobivia will withdraw it's WA membership if this passes, and the Right to a Fair Trial is repealed.

The government of the WSK would like to state that there is no possible way that we will support this resolution. The guise of the "diversity of governmental systems" argument is not going to fool us. This is a resolution that seeks to undermine the judicial system by advocating unfair trials that will only benefit oppressive governments.

We must respectfully disagree; the repeal correctly argues that the current resolution does a poor, or at least heavy-handed, job of ensuring that trials are fair, and does not in the least advocate unfair trials. As further evidence of this, two possible replacements are in advanced stages of preparation, and are available for your consideration here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558466).

We must respectfully disagree; the repeal correctly argues that the current resolution does a poor, or at least heavy-handed, job of ensuring that trials are fair, and does not in the least advocate unfair trials. As further evidence of this, two possible replacements are in advanced stages of preparation, and are available for your consideration here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558466).

The KSPP acknowledges your disagreement but formally states that it will never support this resolution because of the dangerous implications.

The withdrawl of the "right to a fair trial" does not ensure the RETURN of a "right to a fair trial". Once the right is revoked, how is the KSPP to be certain that the exact SAME nations who voted to increase nuclear weaponry are going to support the right to a fair trial?

The KSPP believes that the right will be revoked and that there will NOT be a new one to take its place. This resolution seeks to erode liberty.

We therefore urge everyone to vote against the resolution.

*snip*

What your argument boils down to is this:

Imagine the WA passed a resolution giving certain rights to Slaves, say, rights to file a grievance against an owner. It's absolutely furthering human rights, but at the same time, it would block a resolution that might go further and outlaw slavery completely.

You're saying, that in order to ensure the greatest liberty exists, you're willing to give people LESS liberty.

That makes no sense.

What your argument boils down to is this:

Imagine the WA passed a resolution giving certain rights to Slaves, say, rights to file a grievance against an owner. It's absolutely furthering human rights, but at the same time, it would block a resolution that might go further and outlaw slavery completely.

You're saying, that in order to ensure the greatest liberty exists, you're willing to give people LESS liberty.

That makes no sense.
The same argument was used, repeatedly, during the 'debate' on Repeal "Gay Rights": that although the resolution didn't really do much for gay rights, if it were repealed there was a danger the UN would continue to not really do much for gay rights. It was pretty irritating then, too.

uhhmm.. i cannot figure out what does it mean but since all of us are looking for our own rights, it's better that this appeal is a subject for thorough discussion.. what are the Pros and cons of this matter..? :sniper: because the other thing is for others to really understand this.. we've been entering to another problem without resolving the first problem.. clarification is very important....: :confu:headbang: sed:

I can see how it fails, but what well be brought in return?

You're saying, that in order to ensure the greatest liberty exists, you're willing to give people LESS liberty.

That makes no sense.

The KSPP responds to this allegation by saying that we believe that civil liberties and the right to a fair trial are being adequately handled at the present time.

How many unfair trials will occur if the original resolution is repealed?

The WSK does not think we should give less liberties, we simply believe that we should maintain the current resolutions which seem to be effective at this present time.

I Wurmald, do not in any way; shape; or form endorse this resolution. The right to a fair trial is UNALIENABLE, a God-given right. To strip us of this right is to conform to all sorts of bribery, corruption, and God knows what else. This resolution MUST be denied.

:upyours: :sniper: :mp5:

I Wurmald, do not in any way; shape; or form endorse this resolution. The right to a fair trial is UNALIENABLE, a God-given right. To strip us of this right is to conform to all sorts of bribery, corruption, and God knows what else. This resolution MUST be denied.

:upyours: :sniper: :mp5:

The KSPP commends Wurmald on such a wise decision.

Tell ya what, if someone could tell me what was wrong with WA resolution #3, I might just stand behind this

They claim that the different legal systems are too "diverse" to allow for such a "heavy handed" approach to fair trials.

Bah!

Tell ya what, if someone could tell me what was wrong with WA resolution #3, I might just stand behind this

But no one will be able to because THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT


:headbang:

But no one will be able to because THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT


:headbang:

That's why the KSPP feels that this is blatantly an attempt by the authoritarian presence in the WA to covertly undermine freedom.

If this passes, and we have to be realistic here, its not lookin to good for us...anyway if this passes, we must repeal the repeal............or resign but lets not be that extreme

The Sultanate of Nazjiccs is forced to vote against this proposal for reasons already noted. The Sultan is himself a governor of 13 other nations in his region, and could not honestly revoke all their peoples rights to a fair judicial process. If the Assembly wished to build upon it, there are back doors and legal tactics they could employ to strengthen our rights, not just strip them away and say "Let's start over".

The Sultanate of Nazjiccs is forced to vote against this proposal for reasons already noted. The Sultan is himself a governor of 13 other nations in his region, and could not honestly revoke all their peoples rights to a fair judicial process. If the Assembly wished to build upon it, there are back doors and legal tactics they could employ to strengthen our rights, not just strip them away and say "Let's start over".Would you care to enlighten us as to what these "back doors and legal tactics" might be? Because we've been dealing with the same ruleset for three years, and it has ever demanded, "repeal, then replace."

I'm not expecting much, mind, especially since you seem to think a repeal forces you to revoke fair trials in your own nation.

That's why the KSPP feels that this is blatantly an attempt by the authoritarian presence in the WA to covertly undermine freedom.Produce some evidence backing up your ridiculous claims about the authors' motives; otherwise, shut up.

If this passes, and we have to be realistic here, its not lookin to good for us...anyway if this passes, we must repeal the repeal............or resign but lets not be that extremeNo, please resign.

Individual nations aren't required to revoke their citizen's right to a fair trial in the interim period between the revoking of the old resolution and the introduction of a new resolution protecting the rights to a fair trial.

The main objection that Inca Kolastan has to the original resolution is that it is too prescriptive in requiring trial in front of a jury as a condition of a fair trial which, as anyone could tell you, is far from objectively established as the most fair method of obtaining justice. Furthermore, it allows for unlimited appeals.

I rise this morning to show my support for this repeal for all the reason stated within it. I also applaud the two replacements for it. While both are varied from each other and in need of debate we believe that they are both vast improvements over the original.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

the Sultan of ArdasVarah is not totally against RESOLUTION #3. the right to a fair trial is important to every person.

however, it is important we understand that tough we may be a part of an organization, we are still separated as individual nations. the definition of fair is subjected to the norm of a particular nation and culture. what may seem fair to one nation will not be seen as fair to another.

the sultan understands that there exist proposals intended for the replacement of this resolution. the sultan has noted that the proposals are clearer in contrast to the current resolution but none the less emphasize that "fair" is to subjective a word.

by the grace of the Sultan, ArdasVarah urges the WA to vote for this repeal.

For the record here is the resolution some want to strike out.

Observing that there is currently no guarantee of justice for those accused of criminal acts.

Noting that convictions are often unsafe due to the absence of any legal requirements for a trial under international law

Remarking that miscarriages of justice are common.

Believing that it should be everyone’s right to be protected from malicious and unfair prosecution by law.

Further believing that the more rigorous examination of evidence seen in a fair trial will lead to fewer innocent people being unfairly punished.

Hereby mandates that all WA member nations guarantee a fair trial to anyone facing prosecution in their territory, in accordance with the following requirements:

Article 1 § That the accused be seen as innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, thus placing the onus of proof on the prosecuting authority.

Article 2 § That the defendant be given the right to present his case or to be represented by a person of his choosing.

Article 3 § That the evidence shall be considered by an impartial jury of no less than 5 people and presided over by a judge with knowledge of the laws being applied and the requirements for a trial.

Article 4 § That all persons shall have the right to remain silent when questioned, and exercising this right shall not be used as evidence against them in court.

Article 5 § That information and testimony may not be extracted under duress or using any form of physical or psychological torture.

Article 6 § That the defendant shall have the right to question any witness who provides evidence.

Article 7 § That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed.

Article 8 § That any punitive sentence passed by a court be proportional to the crime committed.

Article 9 § That the proceedings of the trial conclude within a reasonable time period.

And here is the argument for it's permanent removal from our canon of law.

Understanding that the intended purpose of "The Right to a Fair Trial" is to provide fair trials,

Noting that the resolution fails to understand that the WA is composed of wildly divergent cultures in its description of a "Fair Trial",

Also noting that the resolution fails to take into account that certain nations have long-established non-jury judicial systems of unquestioned integrity,

Regretting that the resolution allows defendants to choose any person to represent them, despite the legal ramifications of possible conflicts of interest,

Further regretting that the resolution allows defendants any number of appeals they wish,

Noting that this flawed legislation bars a more effective resolution from passage,

Seeking the opportunity to introduce a more effective version of this resolution to the World Assembly,

The World Assembly hereby repeals "The Right to a Fair Trial".

Let's take the points one by one, not that anyone really takes the points one by one, oh ye large masses of unwashed fluffies, a pox on thee.

1) I really feel sorry for those non-jury system traditions. You know what, if you don't like it leave the WA. Thank you.

2) Read the damn resolution, "person of his choosing" doesn't mean any damn idiot. Just that the person has a choice among several, not among the universe. Shit like this in a repeal argument makes me angry. (Unless you are kenny, but he always has fine organic fertilizer, not shit.)

3) Horse feathers, "That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed." This sounds like two appeals to me, not infinity.

4) Oh you mean you didn't get your resolution passed with your name firmly on the roster from here to eternity and you want to correct that? Find some other issue.

Tzorsland remains STRONGLY OPPOSED to the REPEAL.

I, the Premier of Vladipetriva agree with Tzorland. There may be great diversity within the WA, but a fair trial is still better than nothing. Some countries may institute capital punishment for any crime and if the defendant isn't guilty but is tried as guilty then he/she will be executed.

the right to a fair trial across the world is a safeguard from an omnipresent government and to stop people being arrested when they have done nothing wrong . It is the cornerstone of democracy if we as a world assembly vote for this bill , we are voting against democracy .

4) Oh you mean you didn't get your resolution passed with your name firmly on the roster from here to eternity and you want to correct that?

Oh you mean like the two other WA resolutions I've passed? The replacement isn't even written by me.

I think you've misunderstood my intentions, lets pass something better my friend.

The Republic of the Stars of the North is adamantly OPPOSED to this resolution and has voted against it. There must be some guaranteed rights within the bill to ensure that, in the interim, there will be fair trials throughout WA nations. There also needs to be a time stipulation in which a new Fair Trial policy will be laid out, otherwise the old policy will take effect again. A period of 30 days would be adequate.

Jeb, President of The Republic of the Stars of the North

3) Horse feathers, "That the defendant be entitled to appeal against both the sentence and verdict that has been passed." This sounds like two appeals to me, not infinity.

It is possible that I'm misunderstanding but my interpretation of this clause is that it limits the scope of the appeals not the number.

A person can launch an appeal that states, "I'm not guilty", or an appeal that states "I am guilty however your punishment is wrong." No where in the clause does it state how many of such appeals the person can launch.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

This is getting redicioulus, people are just repealing resolutions because they can.

For the record here is the resolution some want to strike out.

Quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with the legislation as it stands. It provides adequate and proportional safeguards for the liberties that we should all be entitled to take for granted.

As such, Steenhuffel is opposed to this repeal.

The main objection that Inca Kolastan has to the original resolution is that it is too prescriptive in requiring trial in front of a jury as a condition of a fair trial which, as anyone could tell you, is far from objectively established as the most fair method of obtaining justice. Furthermore, it allows for unlimited appeals.

And tell me whats wrong with unlimited appeals?
and what WOULD be the most fair method other than a jury?

I certainly understand the repeal argument. The original resolution could be more specific in some places, but I can't vote to abolish due process and a fair trial across the WA, even if it would be temporary. Yes, everyone should have their own laws on this, but some won't, and the "some" are just as important as the many.

Bayou Barbary, as well as most of World Christian Assembly members (possibly all), are voting against this repeal.

The Theocracy of Gabriel Possenti passionately endorses this legislation of repeal. We're for it.

GP

The right to a fair trail is a slap in the face to all existing legal systems as if to imply they are inefficient. The Confederacy of Greenstripes is in full support of this repeal. A fair trial means putting some of the worlds worst at evens with the Law.

At first I was completely against this repeal because if you don't have fair trial then I would fear of power hungry nations not ever listening to their citizens and simply killing them off if they opposed them, using their not having right to fair trial against them. However after I realized that you meant not to do away with, but to replace with a resolution that makes more sense and could help clear up problems with the courts. On the other hand a trial in itself is for tying crime and switching out right to fair trial to right for a fair criminal trial is simply the same thing said in a different way. I wish you had gone about this in a different way so that there wouldn't be such a hassle with creating a new one, but now that the questions out there...might as well get it over with.
:rolleyes:

*Fotar, king of the Talking Narnian Foxes, walks in with a disgusted look*

Reading through the other posts on here (which is something a lot of people obviously NEED to do), I am just flabbergasted at how naive some people are.

IF people actually READ the discussion here, they would not be saying things such as:

This is getting ridiculous, people are just repealing resolutions because they can. (edited for correct spelling)

or

if we as a world assembly vote for this bill , we are voting against democracy.

No...if they were to spend five minutes and become informed on an issue before opening their mouths, they would know that this repeal is meant to make way for a resolution that:

1. Is much more efficient and effective
2. Gained support much quicker than the current resolution
3. Should have been voted on if it wasn't for bureaucratic red-tape

Just as my fellow talking-foxes that inhabit my lands were against the resolution when it was passed, so too are we in full support of this repeal.
_________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/42513/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

the government of the emperor of urgench wonders at the impartiality of these last comments.


yours, Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for Urgench

the government of the emperor of urgench wonders at the impartiality of these last comments.

Respected Emperor of Urgench, I believe its more accurately called 'consistency of opinion'.
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to refer the respected delegate for the narnian council to an ancient saying of the herdsmen, "consistency is no mark of wisdom, a man may be a fool all his life after all "


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

We meant you no disrespect - but if the real problem is that we're of a different opinion to yours...then feel free to debate! Thats what we're all here for!

But you must understand that 'impartiality (lack thereof)' and 'consistency' are two very different terms, Fotar's words being only befitting of the latter.

_____________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The Sultan's Council of Nazji Elders have gathered several times, and while we feel that changing the rules could be for the better, we feel many of our people would feel much safer if we at least had a plan drawn up prior to the repeal of the present laws. By the current idea of "repeal then revise" we leave a long opening as to which some undesirable seizes power and unjustly persecutes the masses. So if you need to repeal the current rules, can we at least have a safety net saying what we actually intend to do?

Or to leave this topic up to individual nations to carry out how they see fit. :)
agreed! i will execute if i see fit!

So if you need to repeal the current rules, can we at least have a safety net saying what we actually intend to do?

We can have better than that: two safety nets! One of our devising (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374), and one that the Narnian Council has proffered (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558466).

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to assure the respected delegate for the narnian council that we took no offense.


we would also like to thank the delegate for such an incitefull discourse on the differences between impartiality and consistancy. our minds are as yet un-made up on the merits of your undoubtedly excellent proposed resolution, so far you have made good arguments, we look forward to following the rest of the debate.


yours Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

Produce some evidence backing up your ridiculous claims about the authors' motives; otherwise, shut up.

The KSPP is merely highlighting the potential dangers of repealing the motion. What's to say that another "right to a fair trial" is passed? How can you guarantee that there will be a new resolution that also gets passed?

Let's take the points one by one...Tzorsland remains STRONGLY OPPOSED to the REPEAL.

We staunchly agree with Tzorsland. The KSPP does not feel the need to resign, but should a new resolution that attempts to reintroduce the "right to a fair trial" fail, we will resign on the grounds that our fears have been confirmed and the WA is in the hands of tyrants.

The KSPP is merely highlighting the potential dangers of repealing the motion. What's to say that another "right to a fair trial" is passed? How can you guarantee that there will be a new resolution that also gets passed?That isn't what you said:

That's why the KSPP feels that this is blatantly an attempt by the authoritarian presence in the WA to covertly undermine freedom.So is the repeal a dubious scheme by a tyrannical cohort or not? No one can make any guarantees as to what the WA will pass next, but two replacements are already under consideration. Since you cannot demonstrate that the repeal's sponsors are trying to prevent this from happening (and in fact are working with one of the replacements' sponsors), why not be constructive, vote to repeal, and aid in getting the replacement passed? Then you won't have to rail against the imaginary forces of evil plotting to revoke the right to fair trial.

why not be constructive, vote to repeal, and aid in getting the replacement passed?

In light of what the KSPP can only regard as a sound and logical argument, we have decided to change our stance. We do, however, maintain that if a future resolution fails, we may resign for reasons previously stated.

The argument presented against us has proven superior to our own and so we will now support the repeal. Perhaps a better "right to a fair trial" will be drafted in future.

2) Read the damn resolution, "person of his choosing" doesn't mean any damn idiot. Just that the person has a choice among several, not among the universe. Shit like this in a repeal argument makes me angry. (Unless you are kenny, but he always has fine organic fertilizer, not shit.)We're not sure whether to take this as a compliment (and understandably so, since deciphering Tzorslander into actual English has been the life's work of countless Kennyite linguists), but coming straight from Mr. "We Shouldn't Repeal This Resolution Because It Should Not Have Been Approved in the First Place" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9865544#post9865544) himself, we think we will. Thank you, good sir.

And tell me whats wrong with unlimited appeals?
and what WOULD be the most fair method other than a jury?

We believe that the wording of the initial resolution is so vague as to theoretically commit countries to a potentially endless appeals process which could in turn paralyze the legal system.

On your second point, we note that a completely valid argument can be made against the jury system on the basis of a lack of experience in complex legal decision making and biases toward guilty or innocent verdicts (for example in regards to particularly heinous crimes) that cannot be corrected through the simple process of jury selection. While no system is perfect, we believe that countries have the right to explore alternative options to the jury system. We also believe that forcing "an impartial jury of no less than 5 people" upon different justice systems will result in such a requirement becoming a formality subject to abuse based on the selection of such a jury and the definition of "impartial". In short, it is far too insistant upon an aspect of some justice systems almost universally acknowledged as imperfect thus stifling the potential for the development of better alternatives.

We believe that the wording of the initial resolution is so vague as to theoretically commit countries to a potentially endless appeals process which could in turn paralyze the legal system.

The KSPP is now pro-repeal but we are still curious as to how exactly and with what difficulty a resolution which would not be "vague" could be drafted? Surely the importance of an element of ambiguity is needed as each individual country will need to implement its own systems somehow? Or is the objective to standardise all of the legal systems en masse?

The KSPP is now pro-repeal but we are still curious as to how exactly and with what difficulty a resolution which would not be "vague" could be drafted? Surely the importance of an element of ambiguity is needed as each individual country will need to implement its own systems somehow? Or is the objective to standardise all of the legal systems en masse?
The People's Republic of Inca Kolastan agrees that language often needs to be broad in a resolution such as this but that a fine line needs to be walked between language being too vague in some instances and too prescriptive in others. Our specific objection in this instance refers to language implying through its vagueness a potentially unlimited responsibility on the part of the state to guarantee a certain procedure, in this case that of the appeal, as it does not allow for any possible exhaustion of this option.

The People's Republic of Inca Kolastan agrees that language often needs to be broad in a resolution such as this but that a fine line needs to be walked between language being too vague in some instances and too prescriptive in others. Our specific objection in this instance refers to language implying through its vagueness a potentially unlimited responsibility on the part of the state to guarantee a certain procedure, in this case that of the appeal, as it does not allow for any possible exhaustion of this option.

The KSPP is curious, therefore, whether it would not make more sense to have a new resolution ready and confirmed before we do away with the old. There may be quite a lot of delay before a new resolution is passed. What happens to the right to a fair trial in THAT interim?

The KSPP, however, reaffirms its pro-repeal stance in spite of domestic fears.

The KSPP is curious, therefore, whether it would not make more sense to have a new resolution ready and confirmed before we do away with the old. There may be quite a lot of delay before a new resolution is passed. What happens to the right to a fair trial in THAT interim?

The KSPP, however, reaffirms its pro-repeal stance in spite of domestic fears.

We, unfortunately have no way to do that. Any resolution that duplicates an existing one is deleted, even if a repeal is at vote, that can't be changed by a resolution, nor any discussion here, as many folks will tell you when you suggest an idea that may solve that particular problem.

The management has pretty much said "this is how it is, so deal with it".

So we do, bad legislation gets repealed, and it's up to everyone else as to whether the replacement is important or not.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like this to be replaced, and had Narnian not already had a draft ready, I'd have waited until one WAS ready.

The People's Republic of Straethearn fully endorses and supports this proposal. If weak legislation is currently in execution, especially on something as important as the fundamental human right to a fair trial, it can be exploited by loopholes and misinterpretation. I support the repeal of weak or sub-standard articles for the replacement by stronger articles not subject to the same exploitations, especially by corrupt regimes and authoritarian nations.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like this to be replaced, and had Narnian not already had a draft ready, I'd have waited until one WAS ready.

Many thanks on behalf of the Western Krajina Serb people to the Dourian Embassy for their previous statement. You have not only built faith within the country regarding our new stance, but you have also put aside our original fears.

We look forward to voting on the Narnian proposal shortly.

Time to hear what Charlotte has decided so far: it is deciding to approve the repeal because it is allowing convicts to appeal as many times as they like, as said in the repeal. I tell you, sometimes a convict can bribe courts into releasing them, only to commit more crimes shortly.

Time to hear what Charlotte has decided so far: it is deciding to approve the repeal because it is allowing convicts to appeal as many times as they like, as said in the repeal. I tell you, sometimes a convict can bribe courts into releasing them, only to commit more crimes shortly.

The KSPP was busy on other matters and unable to look up a specific resolution but we are curious as to whether or not the WA still allows the death penalty. Is there a resolution condemning it? Or is it up to the will of the people in each respective country?

The KSPP was busy on other matters and unable to look up a specific resolution but we are curious as to whether or not the WA still allows the death penalty. Is there a resolution condemning it? Or is it up to the will of the people in each respective country?
There's no prohibition on the death penalty: it's up to each nation to decide.

There's no prohibition on the death penalty: it's up to each nation to decide.

Brilliant!

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in support of this repeal. Our nation was very dismayed at the proposal in question, particularly it's insensitivity to different nations' customs regarding law and order. Our nation has a well-regulated system of jurisprudence that has survived intact over the centuries and even the upheaval of our recent change in government. We did not wish to join the WA only to see it overruled in such a heavy-handed fashion.

Our nation was very dismayed at the proposal in question, particularly it's insensitivity to different nations' customs regarding law and order

The KSPP was under the impression that the WA hoped to standardise many aspects of different countries and bring them into line. Is this not the case?

The KSPP was under the impression that the WA hoped to standardise many aspects of different countries and bring them into line. Is this not the case?That doesn't mean ever member wishes for that to be the case.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That doesn't mean ever member wishes for that to be the case.


My government is one example of a nation that doesn't wish for the World Assembly to standardize *all* of the aspects of our nation. This isn't to say we don't see a value in the standardization of some issues.

With respect to this repeal, my government has not voted and will likely abstain. That said, the argument presented in the repeal is something we have no argument against and also feel that the repeal is well written.

OOC:
Actually it is amazingly well written. :) Good job! If it were needing a bump, I'm certain some smoozing could change my IC position.

Fair trials is what keeps people from goin to jail for no apparent reason. why are we trying to appeal it?

That doesn't mean ever member wishes for that to be the case.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious HackTo expound upon Madam Pejorative's comment, even when we were known as the United Nations we weren't that united.

Fair trials is what keeps people from goin to jail for no apparent reason. why are we trying to appeal it?

To replace it with a better (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374) version (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558466).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

the government of the emperor of urgench suggests to the respected delegate for Lulzpan that the Gobbanean proposed resolution on the right to fair trials is a far superior alternative to the current legislation and any of it's competitors.


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

[QUOTE=
To replace it with a better (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558374) version (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558466).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative[/QUOTE]

oh ok i guess that works to

In the interests of avoiding unpleasantness, we observe that the Narnian Council's proposed replacement is also current and worthy of your consideration, and may be found through the other of the references supplied by the inestimable Mr Flibble.

i didnt know there was so many flaws in this fair trial -_-

With respect to this repeal, my government has not voted and will likely abstain. That said, the argument presented in the repeal is something we have no argument against and also feel that the repeal is well written.

OOC:
Actually it is amazingly well written. :) Good job! If it were needing a bump, I'm certain some smoozing could change my IC position.Sigh... You may as well go all the way and just sell your vote. (Are you listening, Senator Sulla?) I bid $3,500 worth of fine Old Schutte™ brand cheese, cultured in the lush Wysterian foothills of Shempville, SchutteGod, in exchange for a yes vote from Mikitivity.

Anyone else want in on this?

why are we trying to appeal it?
To replace it with a better version.


There is no guaranty that there will ever be a better one. The current resolution is basically reasonable and trying to improve it, means splitting hairs.
To us this looks rather like an apparent pretext by some nations with a notorious disrespect for human rights to get rid of the "Right to a Fair Trial" once and for all. All this talk about "improving" the resolution is political maneuvering and propaganda.
The Free Land of Amagina votes against the appeal.

Sigh... You may as well go all the way and just sell your vote. (Are you listening, Senator Sulla?) I bid $3,500 worth of fine Old Schutte™ brand cheese, cultured in the lush Wysterian foothills of Shempville, SchutteGod, in exchange for a yes vote from Mikitivity.

Anyone else want in on this?
The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden would like to add to SchutteGod's offer two bottles of Pannondrio blue wine, worth $10,922.40, in exchange for a yes vote from Mikitivity. Thank you, and I'm sure you will like it.

Sigh... You may as well go all the way and just sell your vote. (Are you listening, Senator Sulla?) I bid $3,500 worth of fine Old Schutte™ brand cheese, cultured in the lush Wysterian foothills of Shempville, SchutteGod, in exchange for a yes vote from Mikitivity.

Anyone else want in on this?

The delegate from Mikitivity may very well find a brand new Philimbesian Interceptor SUV in the driveway of his residence should they find it prudent to vote Yes for this measure..

Signed someone other than Nigel S Youlkin...

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to express our dismay at the open horse trading going on over the vote of the RESPECTED delegate for Mikitivity. we note with bemusement that many of these BRIBES are offered for a vote FOR this repeal which at the time they were offered had long since seemed to be passed. so unless another proposal is being bargained over (and we by no means discount that possibility considering the current climate) then these disgusting examples of corruption are as pointless as they are reprehensible.


Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to express our dismay at the open horse trading going on over the vote of the RESPECTED delegate for Mikitivity. we note with bemusement that many of these BRIBES are offered for a vote FOR this repeal which at the time they were offered had long since seemed to be passed. so unless another proposal is being bargained over (and we by no means discount that possibility considering the current climate) then these disgusting examples of corruption are as pointless as they are reprehensible.


Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

You're just upset that no one's offering you anything.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Sigh... You may as well go all the way and just sell your vote. (Are you listening, Senator Sulla?) I bid $3,500 worth of fine Old Schutte™ brand cheese, cultured in the lush Wysterian foothills of Shempville, SchutteGod, in exchange for a yes vote from Mikitivity.

Anyone else want in on this?

We'll throw in a corner office in the new WA building. (Assuming we ever get it finished.)

William Smithers
Senior VP
WA Building Management

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to thank the respected delegate for flibblelites for once again telling us what we really felt with such accuracy. it is hard to know how we functioned without so numinous an intermediary with our inner selves, we call for a new and special department of the W.A for "i always know better and am a smug know-it-all" to be founded emediately and for the noble delegate to be made it's commander in chief.

we salute you respected delegate for flibblelites, may your horde ride swift.

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

The most humble Grand Duchy of Steinburg Island supports the World Assembly resolution to repeal the flawed mandate that ties all our hands. It is regrettable, but a fact, that criminal activity is a very real problem the world over. Crime is a threat to order and must be dealt with. The People of Steinburg Island believe that it must be left up to each member nation to tailor and define their own judicial system in such a way as to address the problemin their own unique way. There can be no single, set-in-stone way to rid the world of this complex, ever-adaptable blight on society.

We thank you for your consideration and hope you will vote to repeal this obstructionist measure.

There is no guaranty that there will ever be a better one. The current resolution is basically reasonable and trying to improve it, means splitting hairs.
To us this looks rather like an apparent pretext by some nations with a notorious disrespect for human rights to get rid of the "Right to a Fair Trial" once and for all. All this talk about "improving" the resolution is political maneuvering and propaganda.
The Free Land of Amagina votes against the appeal.

We are mildly curious to know if the honoured ambassador of Amagina looked at either of the documents Don Flibble brought to the attention of delegates in the post he quoted, or looked up the human rights records of either drafter. We would find it difficult to reconcile a positive answer with his comments.

After "discrussing" this repeal more closely with our neighboooors in the International Democratic Union and reviewing the most excellent progress made on multiple replacement proposals, I'm happy to announce *hiccup* that my government will hold a toast to this repeal *holds up a freshly topped off glass of Pannondrio blue wine* and announce *hiccup* that Mikitivity has cast its vote in favour. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to test the waters of diplomatic immunity in the new addition to the Mikitivity Embassy ... a shiny Philimbesian Interceptor.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: Gotta love it when other nations understand that the way to a Miervatian's mind is through cheese and alcohol. ;)

The resolution Repeal "The Right to a Fair Trial" was passed 7,187 votes to 3,135.

Thanks to all those who participated in the drafting, and all those who supported this resolution. I sincerely appreciate your help in getting this piece of legislation moved through the Assembly.

Yup indeed. It is the first repeal in the history of the World Assembly. It's all part of a reform plan.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to extend it's felicitations to the authors of this historic repeal. we can only hope that this resolution is replaced by one more coherent.

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

Darn it, I'm sitting here waiting to see the mass chaos and gross human rights violations everyone promised us if this repeal were passed... one of these days... it's going to happen.


I rise to congratulate all those involved with this repeal, and laud those working on it's replacement.


Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Delegate
The United States of Philimbesi

My congratulations, Ambassador Willing - a substantial majority, and quite an important step towards a greater benchmark of proposal quality.

We hope that either Prince Rhodri or I will be able to provide a more befitting resolution for The World Assembly's new standards, and that another repeal will not be necessary for quite some time to come.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

We can but echo the Lord Chancellor's comments: Congratulations, Ambassador Willing!

We'll throw in a corner office in the new WA building. (Assuming we ever get it finished.)

William Smithers
Senior VP
WA Building Management

Hey, our teams are actually ahead of schedule on this project.

FieldThane Andrew Pelagius Smith,
Kinglish Engineers,
St Edmund.
(Mission commander, WA HQ Construction)

The Republic of Serahk wholeheartedly supports this resolution, as we have long stood by our Court of Intent procedure. Excellent work.

I'm a little disappointed. But it's all good, the World Assembly Liberation Military Department will be here soon. They will ensure that a fair trial among other human rights are delivered.