Yes, of course. I am new here - I had thought that these spaces were for debate and opposition, and accountability, and reconciliation etc. etc. If this is more of a one party rule cosplaying as a democratic legislature then I apologize for the misunderstanding. Noted.
This is a legislature, and like all legislatures there comes a point where bills are put to a vote.
5 Likes
But what if we donât? 
2 Likes
For what itâs worth @Domnonia isnât a citizen, let alone a legislator. Itâs good that theyâre being engaged with our legislative process even while they are applying for citizenship though!
I think youâd find that we are far from a one-party state - go through the past votes and debates in the Assembly.
1 Like
I voted no because of two reasons: you shouldnât be able to repeal a grant of amnesty and this was like 8 years ago. Let sleeping dogs lie.
To my first point once the region says that liability is waived, it shouldnât, later, undermine itself by taking back its actions. Amnesty is amnesty, in my opinion.
To my second point, this happened 8 years ago. How are you going to collect evidence from 8 years ago? How much of the potential evidence even still exists? Furthermore, all the players arenât here to testify. And, cross-examination becomes impossible.
1 Like
Evidence of what? This resolution doesnât charge anyone with any crimes.
It implies that we want people charged. Sure, the official charges would be levied whenever they rejoin, or whatever. I just think that they can no-longer be held fairly accountable. As in any trial (which this resolution endorses), would have major barriers based on lost information.
1 Like
Thankfully we have a High Court with very experienced and capable justices who can be trusted to act fairly and professionally.
1 Like
Maybe so. But, my personal value judgment is that equity is against this. After all, this was 8 years ago and we have moved on. Whatever harm a coup in 2016 has is distant. And, any charges (again, I understand that this is not a bill of attainer, per se) are serve no other purpose than to be vindictive.
1 Like
This is patently false. We set a terrible precedent in 2016 that it was fine to overthrow the government is you garnered enough sympathy from the Assembly. We have an opportunity to prove that wrong and show that living in a democracy also means playing by the rules of democracy, which the individuals concerned did not do.
1 Like
Look if this was 2016, 2017, 2018, or maybe 2019. Iâd agree with you. But, itâs not. Itâs time to move on.
How is the harm not distant? This was like 8 years ago and we have recovered. Weâve had multiple GCs since then and we seem to be in a good state.
But, look, if a happened now, in the present, I would be on my soapbox advocating for criminal charges and for the coup to be defeated. As for this case, it is too distant to be relevant. It think it is high time to let bygones be bygones and move on.
So in a sentence my thoughts are: In my subjective judgment, this prosecution does not protect democracy, rather, it is just vindictive judgment.
A crime is still a crime, no matter how long ago it was committed. We shouldnât fail to hold people accountable for their actions because so much time has passed.
Yeah, but any trial after 8 years for an NS-related offense is a, IMO, bound to be an unfair trial. Because there is no way for an accurate picture to arise.
Numerous barriers prevent a fair trial. After all, a lot of data has been lost, e.g. chat logs. Also, unlike in real life, we canât subpoena key witnesses. And, some of those key witnesses might have quit the game.
This is why statutes of limitations exist in the real world. Itâs to prevent this precise situation where key witnesses are unavailable, witnessesâ memory has faded, and information has been lost.
1 Like
It absolutely remains relevant, as several current members of our community were the victims of a smear campaign and the target of the attempted coup. Better late than never to restore accountability to NationStatesâ Oldest Democracy.
This isnât restoring accountability as much as it is being vindictive for things that happened 8 years ago. And, as I have explained previously, a fair trial is almost impossible. There is no reason for there to be charges especially when amnesty was previously granted.
Sure, some of the older members might remember this coup but most do not. Why are we bringing up dirty laundry from 8 years ago? Itâs best to let bygones be bygones.
1 Like
I love how couping is fine as long as you let enough time pass.
1 Like
One would think that having tried to overthrow the government of The South Pacific is more than âdirty laundryâ. It doesnât matter how much time passes, since that point they will always have attempted a coup and acknowledging that is the least we can do.
1 Like
Well I think itâs more that it has been 8 years since a general amnesty was granted. And that it was done so with grace.
Oh ya, Iâm new and happy to be here. Just enjoying teh view.
Ya Iâve read it all, and every available case in the high court and all of the sunshine office chat releases and a bunch of the old debates on the old board. Itâs been fun and VERY dramatic, sometimes.
Recently in Saskatchewan the government introduced a policy regarding trans kids experience in school and it was challenged in court as being unconstitutional and a judge suspended the policy to prevent it from impacting folks while the case was being heard, but then the governing party recalled the leg early in summer to pass legislation that they hoped would prevent the court from making a ruling on the constitutionality of the policy and also included things like anti- sex ed, and how many flags schools are allowed to fly at one time and which ones and they called it a âParents Rights Billâ. Ha!
Any way, maybe this situation triggered me and gave me ghoulish government vibes.