|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 12:38:46 GMT -6
I think I'd prefer not to have an MC who's doing time, for example. One can for oneself vote by mail or telephone.
Someone who did their time on the other hand, I dont see why they couldnt become citizens. If we were all 18+.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 12:40:12 GMT -6
If for arguments sake, our code didnt penalise the underlying offence. Just didnt mention it at all. Would it still be incriminatory? Its just a fact in a persons biography in another jurisdiction then, isnt it? Yeah, I guess that goes to the "bigger issue" you alluded to earlier: what do you do if someone provides an affirmative response? If the state truly has a legitimate non-punitive purpose for asking the question, there could be an argument that the requirement to report does not violate 5th Covenant rights, but I'm not sure what that could be. A point of comparison: in the U.S. military, there are regulations requiring servicemembers to report criminal charges and convictions, but the purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the chain of command is aware of circumstances that could make the servicemember unavailable for deployment, relocation, etc. Moreover, the self-report or information derived from the self-report cannot be the basis of criminal or disciplinary action against the servicemember. Public order? We had two aytempts at intimidation and numerous piblic insukts thrown around in.the last few days.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Feb 25, 2016 12:45:36 GMT -6
I think I'd prefer not to have an MC who's doing time, for example. One can for oneself vote by mail or telephone. Someone who did their time on the other hand, I dont see why they couldnt become citizens. If we were all 18+. I'm referring to existing citizens. I assumed from the title of the discussion, some posts above, and lots of threads everywhere else that a consensus is forming that serious criminals should be stripped of their citizenship. As for running for office, criminals could be banned from holding office while they are serving time. Or perhaps even some time afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:03:39 GMT -6
I dont know if any of us really know what we want, to be honest. Were barely past defining the problem.
If you stop people participating on elections though what else is really left for them to do in Talossa? Might just be better to end the connection?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 25, 2016 13:13:18 GMT -6
Public order? We had two aytempts at intimidation and numerous piblic insukts thrown around in.the last few days. Okay. How does knowing about a charge or conviction contribute to public order, unless you're planning on taking some action against the citizen based on the charge or conviction? Note that in Canun's case, it was knowing about the conviction that resulted in intimidation, insults, etc. If you require reporting without taking action against the citizen, it seems likely to cause rather than prevent disorder. If you require reporting for the purposes of taking action against the citizen, it seems that you have a self-incrimination problem. Just trying to think this through.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:20:02 GMT -6
If the apprpriate authorities had known then it could probably have been handled better. Not necessarily in secret, but in a more prepared way and with all the steps that were taken to secure information, have a safe space to discuss the issue, organise a coherent response, etc. It was the sudden explosiveness of the revelation (from 9 months ago, but even so) that caused the problem.
An undeclated conviction would probably end up causing the same chaos, but then it could be contained by the ability to close down the relationship with the citizen involved, on the basis they *didn't* make the declaration.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Feb 25, 2016 13:23:43 GMT -6
I dont know if any of us really know what we want, to be honest. Were barely past defining the problem. If you stop people participating on elections though what else is really left for them to do in Talossa? Might just be better to end the connection? There's no reason to stop them from voting, surely? They have interests and concerns like everyone else. Anyhow, I had formed the distinct impression that we were anxious to rid ourselves of ICC as fast as possible. I've been away for a couple of days and haven't kept up, so maybe I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:27:01 GMT -6
Just trying to think this through. Well, I don't even play a lawyer on TV, so I'm glad someone with a bit of training is! I'm by no means saying this is the best possible idea. The more the better.
|
|
|
Post by Alèx Soleighlfred on Feb 25, 2016 13:29:24 GMT -6
We're never going to rid of ICC for clear and ever. Bad parts of our history are still parts of our history.
|
|
|
Post by Inxheneu Crova on Feb 25, 2016 13:31:26 GMT -6
I dont know if any of us really know what we want, to be honest. Were barely past defining the problem. If you stop people participating on elections though what else is really left for them to do in Talossa? Might just be better to end the connection? There's no reason to stop them from voting, surely? They have interests and concerns like everyone else. Anyhow, I had formed the distinct impression that we were anxious to rid ourselves of ICC as fast as possible. I've been away for a couple of days and haven't kept up, so maybe I was wrong. I may be an outlier, in that I dont think we can push him out and stay true to our rules. I dont think what I am proposing would apply to him. I think however a National Census held soon would mechanically remove him, or else he would strike out, but not I guess before 2017?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 13:51:24 GMT -6
Bear with me here, please. Can someone explain to me why criminals need to be stripped of their citizenship? Just because some people have jobs (mainly teachers) where ANY associations with a child abuser is ground for summary dismissal. In short, if we allow Iusti to keep his citizenship, that means he is still a member of our "club", and that means that we have teachers in the same "club" as a convincted pedophile. Many Teachers, when faced with this, often have two choices: 1 ) Make the organization expel the pedophile 2 ) Resign from the organization The level of paranoia in school districts varies from place to place, but in many places, ANY contact with a convicted pedophile can be grounds for dismissal, because the school district will be afraid that a parent could sue the district for permitting this.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Feb 25, 2016 13:57:19 GMT -6
Bear with me here, please. Can someone explain to me why criminals need to be stripped of their citizenship? Just because some people have jobs (mainly teachers) where ANY associations with a child abuser is ground for summary dismissal. In short, if we allow Iusti to keep his citizenship, that means he is still a member of our "club", and that means that we have teachers in the same "club" as a convincted pedophile. Many Teachers, when faced with this, often have two choices: 1 ) Make the organization expel the pedophile 2 ) Resign from the organization The level of paranoia in school districts varies from place to place, but in many places, ANY contact with a convicted pedophile can be grounds for dismissal, because the school district will be afraid that a parent could sue the district for permitting this. I see the problem, but our "club" is not physical. I am a member of several organizations, with thousands of members, I am sure that there are some unsavoury people in them. If a Canadian teacher is a member of Rotary International, and it is revealed that a Rotary member in Valparaiso, Chile, has served time for statutory rape, must that Canadian teacher leave the organisation? It sounds completely mad to my ears.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 14:02:28 GMT -6
Just because some people have jobs (mainly teachers) where ANY associations with a child abuser is ground for summary dismissal. In short, if we allow Iusti to keep his citizenship, that means he is still a member of our "club", and that means that we have teachers in the same "club" as a convincted pedophile. Many Teachers, when faced with this, often have two choices: 1 ) Make the organization expel the pedophile 2 ) Resign from the organization The level of paranoia in school districts varies from place to place, but in many places, ANY contact with a convicted pedophile can be grounds for dismissal, because the school district will be afraid that a parent could sue the district for permitting this. I see the problem, but our "club" is not physical. I am a member of several organizations, with thousands of members, I am sure that there are some unsavoury people in them. If a Canadian teacher is a member of Rotary International, and it is revealed that a Rotary member in Valparaiso, Chile, has served time for statutory rape, must that Canadian teacher leave the organisation? It sounds completely mad to my ears. The problem isn't so much in Canada. The problem is mainly with US teachers, and only for pedophilia. Staturory rape, murder, fraud, no problem. It's only pedophilia because of a zero tolerance policy of school districts. Now, Rotary is divided in sub-units. If you are a member of different group, no problem. Of the same group? You have to suspend your membership or change group. Talossa is a single unit, so if there is a pedophile here, no teacher can be here, even if it's virtual since pedophiles now form virtual communities to exchange their smut.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 25, 2016 14:35:45 GMT -6
Bear with me here, please. Can someone explain to me why criminals need to be stripped of their citizenship? Just because some people have jobs (mainly teachers) where ANY associations with a child abuser is ground for summary dismissal. In short, if we allow Iusti to keep his citizenship, that means he is still a member of our "club", and that means that we have teachers in the same "club" as a convincted pedophile. Many Teachers, when faced with this, often have two choices: 1 ) Make the organization expel the pedophile 2 ) Resign from the organization The level of paranoia in school districts varies from place to place, but in many places, ANY contact with a convicted pedophile can be grounds for dismissal, because the school district will be afraid that a parent could sue the district for permitting this. This isn't true, by and large. Thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Feb 25, 2016 15:07:30 GMT -6
Just because some people have jobs (mainly teachers) where ANY associations with a child abuser is ground for summary dismissal. In short, if we allow Iusti to keep his citizenship, that means he is still a member of our "club", and that means that we have teachers in the same "club" as a convincted pedophile. Many Teachers, when faced with this, often have two choices: 1 ) Make the organization expel the pedophile 2 ) Resign from the organization The level of paranoia in school districts varies from place to place, but in many places, ANY contact with a convicted pedophile can be grounds for dismissal, because the school district will be afraid that a parent could sue the district for permitting this. This isn't true, by and large. Thankfully. It isn't??? Then I guess it's another exageration but T.M. and one other citizen who contacted me in private. Damnit, I didn't that one coming.
|
|