|
Post by Istefan Lorentzescu on Dec 21, 2011 14:14:30 GMT -6
Talossans are silly, not stupid.) Well Said
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 21, 2011 15:15:27 GMT -6
So does that mean we are free to be involved with micronations, since wouldnt be commiting the crime in Talossa? (btw, Obviously this law doesnt allow citizens to break the law of their other countries, just like the abortion article in the orglaw doesnt allow citizens to abort their children in countries where this is not allowed. As long as thats clear I dont see any problems. Talossans are silly, not stupid.) www.kingdomoftalossa.net/index.cgi?lingo=&page=Statute&act=25RZ50That one is about government policy. I was talking about this one: kingdomoftalossa.net/index.cgi?lingo=&page=Statute&act=37RZ2 It states it is a crime for citizens to be a citizen of a micronation, but MAG's comment made me wonder whether Talossan can be punished for crimes they committed outside Talossa. PS -off topic- What about Cézembre, and Pengopäts? Wisconsin cant really enforce its criminal laws over there.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 21, 2011 17:16:09 GMT -6
The difference is , it's ok to know and talk to citizens of other micronations, but you can't hold dual citizenship .
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Dec 21, 2011 20:51:02 GMT -6
Cézembre and Pengopäts are Talossan territories and therefore are part of the physical make-up of the nation. Talossans and others physically located in those areas are within the national boundries of Talossa and subject to the laws of the realm, IMHO.
MAG
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 22, 2011 7:34:24 GMT -6
I would like to see medical, spiritual, religious and meditative uses in the WHEREAS sections. If it were to be passed I would like to see it passed for more reasons than given so far.
Is it 4.20 yet?
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 22, 2011 8:05:29 GMT -6
There are two (different) topics here that I would like to address. I shall do so in two different postings.
The first topic is the overlap of jurisdictions. There are five different levels which we, as a nation, must address:
1) those parts of what would otherwise be Wisconsin which we as a kingdom, and we alone, declare as being Talossa; 2) those parts of what would otherwise be Wisconsin to which both we, as kingdom, and others who also call themselves Talossan, but who are not of this kingdom, lay claim; 3) the island of Cézembre; 4) the region of Pengopäts; and 5) all other parts of the world.
A: For all five regions we must encourage our citizens to abide by the laws of the UN-recognised prior holders of these territories. The laws of Wisconsin, however, apply only to areas 1) and 2) and cannot sensibly (even by Talossan law) be imposed upon areas 3), 4) and 5): hence the wording of the first sentence of this paragraph. In area 3) and in some parts of area 5) the laws of France will be exercised by other authorities. In area 4) it is difficult to say what other nation or organisation would claim jurisdiction - but I'm sure one of my fellow citizens will be able to find out, and let us know!
B: Whereas we do not, as a kingdom, formally recognise the claim of other persons who call themselves Talossan to any of the lands over which our king reigns (Long may he live!), we should be able to word all our laws and official proclamations so that there is, in others' eyes, no conflict between our laws and laws of any other jurisdiction.
C: We, perhaps, as a nation have the opportunity of imposing and assigning laws not upon the territory but upon the citizens as individuals. Thus upon those who are not Talossan citizens (of this kingdom) we do not impose any laws, but all of our laws are imposed upon all of our citizens (and those seeking citizenship, and - whilst visiting - those visiting).
Thus - three suggestions. Any observations would be welcomed.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 22, 2011 8:14:03 GMT -6
My second topic is to ask the question: what is a micro-nation?
We have to be very careful as to how we word the formal definition of this. We cannot, for example, use "any country without diplomatic relations to the USA" as a definition. Nor can we use "any country not currently a member of the United Nations". Nor "any country with fewer than five hundred citizens". Nor "any country formed within the last one hundred years / twenty years / five years".
One reason we have to be careful of our definition is that a visitor may come to us who is already a citizen of some country which falls foul of our definition (Taiwan, Switzerland, Vatican City, South Sudan... there are lots), and that person may, in all honesty, seek to become a Talossan citizen. We do not want to exclude such a person on spurious grounds - and our definition of "micro-nation" must not be those grounds.
Observations would be welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Dec 22, 2011 8:58:07 GMT -6
Well, my take on this is that it's a bad law and if I remember correctly Greg (who by the way has asked for his name to be changed to Grigôriu Taváléir on all Talossan public pages!) proposed it mostly to silence Ben's diatribes. Because the only problem we had with micros at the time was that Ben hated them all for not wanting to join Talossa. Instead he coined the myth that Talossa was unique and different from all other micronations, and spread his venom on Witt, page up and page down. Thus the law to put a stop to the ranting. In my opinion, the sooner you get rid of that law, the better. We never brought it with us to the Republic and it has never caused us any problems. But of course, you do as you wish. However, those are my observations.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Dec 22, 2011 9:20:47 GMT -6
... the only problem we had with micros at the time was that Ben hated them all for not wanting to join Talossa. Instead he coined the myth that Talossa was unique and different from all other micronations... There are several kinds of (virtual) micronations - teenagers' fantasy nations, one-man micronations (e.g. Molossia), whatever. IMHO, both Talossas ARE micronations. They are indeed unique in that they have a well-defined character, history, language, but these things alone do not make them better or worse than others.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 22, 2011 10:06:49 GMT -6
THIS THREAD HAS BECOME SO CONFUSING :S
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Dec 22, 2011 13:52:19 GMT -6
THIS THREAD HAS BECOME SO CONFUSING :S +1
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 27, 2011 18:37:49 GMT -6
Potential for confusion is, alas, the consequence of complex debate.
This interesting proposed law, and the discussions arising from it, have touched upon many fundamental legal points which do need to be clarified before we can accept - or deny - this proposed law. We do need, as a nation, to be clear in our laws - somewhere - about our views on overlapping jurisdictions, and to ensure that we recognise the legitimacy of other nation states to exercise their laws too, in their territories - without at any time denying our claim upon our territories.
For example, the statement "Cézembre and Pengopäts are Talossan territories" is absolutely correct - but we must be aware that in neither of those territories can we impose all (or indeed, any!) of the laws of Wisconsin, and that both French law and International law may disagree with Talossan law on many points, and that we do not have the power to over-rule the application of such laws in those Talossan regions.
If it is felt that it would be better to discuss these questions in another thread, then I am more than happy to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 10, 2012 16:42:38 GMT -6
There are two (different) topics here that I would like to address. I shall do so in two different postings. The first topic is the overlap of jurisdictions. There are five different levels which we, as a nation, must address: 1) those parts of what would otherwise be Wisconsin which we as a kingdom, and we alone, declare as being Talossa; 2) those parts of what would otherwise be Wisconsin to which both we, as kingdom, and others who also call themselves Talossan, but who are not of this kingdom, lay claim; 3) the island of Cézembre; 4) the region of Pengopäts; and 5) all other parts of the world. A: For all five regions we must encourage our citizens to abide by the laws of the UN-recognised prior holders of these territories. The laws of Wisconsin, however, apply only to areas 1) and 2) and cannot sensibly (even by Talossan law) be imposed upon areas 3), 4) and 5): hence the wording of the first sentence of this paragraph. In area 3) and in some parts of area 5) the laws of France will be exercised by other authorities. In area 4) it is difficult to say what other nation or organisation would claim jurisdiction - but I'm sure one of my fellow citizens will be able to find out, and let us know! B: Whereas we do not, as a kingdom, formally recognise the claim of other persons who call themselves Talossan to any of the lands over which our king reigns (Long may he live!), we should be able to word all our laws and official proclamations so that there is, in others' eyes, no conflict between our laws and laws of any other jurisdiction. C: We, perhaps, as a nation have the opportunity of imposing and assigning laws not upon the territory but upon the citizens as individuals. Thus upon those who are not Talossan citizens (of this kingdom) we do not impose any laws, but all of our laws are imposed upon all of our citizens (and those seeking citizenship, and - whilst visiting - those visiting). Thus - three suggestions. Any observations would be welcomed. From my point of view, it seems as though we could easily have this as a law, and it shouldn't affect any other jurisdictional claims. First off, the only parts of the world we lay claim to are parts of Wisconsin, the island of Cézembre, and the region of Pengopäts, and our laws only govern actions that take place in those locations, even though other bodies holding territorial claims over those locations may have different laws. It is my understanding that OrgLaw gives all Talossans the "right-to-die", something that most US states outlaw. Does that mean that as a Talossan citizen residing in another state that outlaws this, I do not have this right? Child trafficking has been in the news recently, and they have reported that a US Citizen that engages in these practices in another country could also be charged in America. (A quick State Department search yields the same thing.) So if a Talossan engaged in criminal activity (as defined by Talossa) outside Talossan territory, they could be charged in Talossa as well as the country they were caught in. However, if an American gets arrested in, lets say, Saudi Arabia, do they have the same rights they are afforded in America? Not at all. So if a Talossan is arrested for marijuana charges outside Talossan territory, they just have to deal with whatever laws that are on the books in the location they are in; Talossan law has no jurisdiction. The main question one has to ask, is does Talossan law have jurisdictional relevance in Talossan territory? (Territory that is claimed by other countries.) Or, in this case, would a marijuana user arrested in Talossan territory be subject to Talossan law? I would have to cede that the country who is making the arrest would have the jurisdiction, even if the Talossan doesn't feel they have the jurisdiction to. (We see this globally--the US arresting terrorists in other countries.) Although if it happened, it would be interesting for the person to use their Talossan citizenship as a defense. It would certainly put us in the news! But all this is assuming one would actually get caught and be arrested in the first place. How likely is it for a Talossan citizen to be arrested in America (or elsewhere) on marijuana charges? How likely is it for that citizen to use his citizenship as a defense? Finally, is Talossa a country that practices extradition? xD
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jan 10, 2012 20:48:30 GMT -6
But all this is assuming one would actually get caught and be arrested in the first place. How likely is it for a Talossan citizen to be arrested in America (or elsewhere) on marijuana charges? How likely is it for that citizen to use his citizenship as a defense? Finally, is Talossa a country that practices extradition? xD Well it is funny you should say that. Only just an hour ago did I get stopped by the police while walking back home and got charged for cannabis possession. Quite angry. Now I will have a permanent criminal record. The procurator fiscal will send me some mail telling me what is to become of my criminal self. Personal freedom in the UK? I did not use Talossa as a defence lol.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 10, 2012 21:02:03 GMT -6
But all this is assuming one would actually get caught and be arrested in the first place. How likely is it for a Talossan citizen to be arrested in America (or elsewhere) on marijuana charges? How likely is it for that citizen to use his citizenship as a defense? Finally, is Talossa a country that practices extradition? xD Well it is funny you should say that. Only just an hour ago did I get stopped by the police while walking back home and got charged for cannabis possession. Quite angry. Now I will have a permanent criminal record. The procurator fiscal will send me some mail telling me what is to become of my criminal self. Personal freedom in the UK? I did not use Talossa as a defence lol. Oops I jinxed it But seriously, that is ridiculous! Why is it that marijuana is so prohibited? I mean, I understand the history and all, but the drug war is seriously ridiculous. (In all countries apparently) Talossa, as an independent nation, should legalize cannabis, even if it is merely symbolic in a jurisdictional/legal sense.
|
|