|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Apr 11, 2009 7:13:37 GMT -6
I believe this is inorganic under the 2nd covenant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 11, 2009 8:22:40 GMT -6
I think a way to avoid this being inOrganic would be to form it as a Sense of the Ziu operating under an Honour Code - a non-statutory board would be in place to non-statutorily censure Members.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2009 18:37:20 GMT -6
I believe this is inorganic under the 2nd covenant. I disagree. First, the law is intended to maintain public order. Second, it is not a limit on a citizen's free speech, it is a limit on what an MC can say or do while acting in the capacity of an MC. |
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Apr 11, 2009 23:07:20 GMT -6
I fully agree with Tim on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Apr 12, 2009 10:29:16 GMT -6
Right. That is called prohibiting speech. That is inorganic.
While I understand your point, I much prefer Owen's solution in which MC's operate under an Honour Code for two reasons.
First, as I have stated many times before, I believe it is a restriction on free speech. If politicians want to say stupid things, let them, it just means they won't be put back in power the next time around, right? Thus, I say that the part of the act which says "As such, name-calling and taunting shall be considered a censurable act when it is done publicly and while speaking from the position as a Member of the Cosa." (Defamation/Slander is a different thing entirely, and is a sueable offense) should be removed.
Second, I am highly suspect of the ethics committee. If these committee members are put into place by the PM, what's to stop the majority party from "censoring" things that minority party MCs say? (I am, of course, speaking in my own self-interest as a minority party MC). Now, you say ethics committee members can be impeached for such offenses, but the majority party can (since they are the majority) stop such impeachment proceedings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2009 10:48:19 GMT -6
Dreu, nobody is saying a politician cannot say "something stupid" what it is saying is that a politician cannot, when speaking from their position as an MC, slander or defame another MC. This is not an inorganic interpretation, nor is it a limitation of free speech.
It is a limitation of what an MC can say in the chambers of the Ziu and the Hopper, outside, they can say whatever they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Apr 12, 2009 11:14:48 GMT -6
This is very different from name-calling. Saying something that is untrue about someone is and should be illegal. Calling someone an "idiot" or "bastard" is quite another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2009 11:24:57 GMT -6
It isn't a free speech issue, Dreu.
Telling an MC that you cannot call another MC a "bastard" or an "idiot" in the Ziu or the Hopper is not a limitation on their free speech.
Second, re-read the OrgLaw,
You can disagree with its necessity, or the manner in which it is presented, but it is not inorganic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 12, 2009 16:23:25 GMT -6
Well, idiot or bastard can be termed defamatory terms that are only acceptable in everyday parlance because of the vagueness of the charge - bastard plainly isn't being used to mean illegitimate, and how does one measure "idiot" and by which of the infinite ways of doing so?
I do concur with Tim that ONE WAY OR ANOTHER there should be a way of enforcing decent behaviour on the floor, beyond strictures of law - as Dreu points out, slander etc is already illegal.
Another option would be an elected, active Speaker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 12, 2009 18:07:26 GMT -6
I will vote against this. It is absolutely an unneeded new committee/agency, an unneeded set of strictures, and unneeded legislation. I would suggest instead a cosa bill establishing a set of ethics for that body.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2009 18:17:04 GMT -6
I will vote against this. It is absolutely an unneeded new committee/agency, an unneeded set of strictures, and unneeded legislation. I would suggest instead a cosa bill establishing a set of ethics for that body. It isn't an agency, it is an appointment of 3 seated MCs, first of all. As for it being a Cosa bill, such is my intent. Now that we have examined purpose, let's take a look at the intent and how we would do it. I am not happy with this initial draft, but I like to think it will spark discussion. Here is my intent: We a code of ethics We need to designate who would make a motion to remove a fellow MC in the event of a violation of that code. My first thought is have the PM set aside 2 or 3 MCs to review infractions. This isn't a new agency, it is a committee much like the congressional committees in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 12, 2009 18:39:27 GMT -6
MCs may be removed by a 2/3 vote of the Cosa. Is there some reason to think that the Cosa as a body is incapable of handling ethics complaints, or is there some reason you want to concentrate ethical censuring and decisions to impeach in the hands of three MCs?
Obviously the Cosa may do as they wish, I just thought it merited pointing out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2009 20:27:51 GMT -6
MCs may be removed by a 2/3 vote of the Cosa. Is there some reason to think that the Cosa as a body is incapable of handling ethics complaints, or is there some reason you want to concentrate ethical censuring and decisions to impeach in the hands of three MCs? Obviously the Cosa may do as they wish, I just thought it merited pointing out. There is a very good reason to think that the Cosa as a body is incapable of handling ethics complaints. Who is handling the complaints? Is it a responsibility of the SoS? And if so, according to what guidelines? So far, you have pointed out that the Cosa should discipline a person without assigning the responsibility to any individual, so who drafts the measure to impeach, the entire Cosa? And regarding ethical violations, what constitutes an ethical violation? Is being rude enough to warrant impeachment? There is no standard. While there is a procedure for removal, there is no guideline for the in-between. So if MC X does something wrong, the standard for which is not spelled out and thus subject to individual interpretation, the move to begin proceedings to remove MC X is up to any individual, if they should feel inclined, and you view the present system as being fully functional and in no way in need of change? |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 12, 2009 22:09:48 GMT -6
What is the ethics complaint that has gone unhandled?
Why do you think individual discussion would be unable to handle a given ethics complaint brought before your body and that a committee is needed? Why would this need to be assigned to any specific set of legislators, rather than permitting anyone who wishes to do so to bring an ethical challenge before the Cosa? Why would it need to be settled by some legislated committee whether or not being rude was enough to warrant impeachment? Surely if a majority of the Cosa thinks the rudeness was sufficient, that settles the matter.
I suppose I shall step back, actually, and let MCs sort this out for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2009 8:08:26 GMT -6
Surely if a majority of the Cosa thinks the rudeness was sufficient, that settles the matter. I think that a standardized code of ethics would prevent abuse would serve to prevent abuse and ensure easy identification of an ethical violation. After all, who can say an MC acted unethically when we have no definition of what unethical is? |
|
