Request for Review - Speaker Powerplay

[Blue Wolf II]

Recently the Speaker locked down a discussion regarding a change in law for no given reason, presumably because he disagreed with the changes the law suggested. The topic can be found here. The proposed law also had a motion to vote on it that couldn't be seconded due to the Speaker's action, essentially blocking a vote.

I would like to know if it is legal for the Speaker to essentially block discussion, and a motion to vote, on whatever he'd like simple because he doesn't agree with it, or if this is a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Thank you in advance for your help in clarifying this matter.

-Wolf

 

[Flemingovia]

I was preventing people from being fuckwits.

Think of it as a public service.

 

[Gaspo]

Constitution, Article 2 Clause 6

6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

I think that should about settle this.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

BW, you and several others in that thread are guilty of mean-spirited behavior which I will not tolerate. Give it up already.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

I don't think my intent was to do anything that I have no already done in the past, no particularly ill will intended at all.

The question is, of course, that of a Speaker's ability to block a vote because he feels those who brought it are "fuckwits".

Clearing being a "fuckwit" is not a legitimate excuse for blocking a vote, or at least not by anything I've seen in the Constitution.

So I must ask the Court if the Speaker may block a vote on anything by simply declaring the proposing side to be "fuckwits"?

 

[Chasmanthe]

If it so please the court.

It is socially acceptable to bully and victimize Govindia. Blue Wolf has banned Ramaba before, it's reasonable that his intention to do it again is for real. I was going on the assumption that nobody substantially objects to Blue Wolf's intentions, therefore they are considered acceptable. This undermines the values expressed in the Bill of Rights, if we as a society favour Blue Wolf's discretion over the Bill of Rights, it makes the Bill of Rights irrelevant. I am not happy with that, I want to preserve the rule of law. The way to do that is to legitimize Blue Wolf's intent.

Did I not make my intentions clear?

If Flemingovia is always right then I must be a fuckwit then. I must be wrong.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

To not realize that statements like "It is socially acceptable to bully and victimize Govindia." have crossed the line from gameplay to forum moderation is quintessential f-wittedness.

And why is my screen snowing bunnies?

 

[Flemingovia]

Your screen is not snowing bunnies. It is a hallucination. seek medical help immediately.

 

[Kiwi]

To not realize that statements like "It is socially acceptable to bully and victimize Govindia." have crossed the line from gameplay to forum moderation is quintessential f-wittedness.

And why is my screen snowing bunnies?

There are a number of problems with this whole debacle.

1. I personally do think this is an issue for forum moderation but Flem has chosen to address the issue with his "speaker" hat. See here.

2. It is entirely inappropriate for an ADMINISTRATOR to be using that kind of language. I notice GBM, that you, yourself, have refrained from doing so.

It's disappointing because as hilarious as the thread might have been, the whole situation was a bit murky at best.

 

[Chasmanthe]

Thanks Kiwi. I don't think the Admins are being too inappropriate, all things considered.

The proposal was harsh, but if TNP is not prepared to treat Govindia with the same rights as the rest of us then we should update the bill of rights to reflect that. That's what the debate was for, which Flemingovia in his infinite wisdom has closed down.

I take it the dose of common sense that he has dispensed means that we don't need a debate, and perhaps the way to maintain the region is to regard the bill of rights as irrelevant?

We have elected a vice delegate who seeks to punish someone extrajudicially. It seems we are not capable of addressing that in the assembly, for whatever reason that escapes me.

It's at times of increased tension that it's important to listen to what the admins say, and follow it.

 

[Belschaft]

Speaking personally, I am sick of the way Govinda is treated by some members of these forums. You don't like him, we get it. But it has got to the point were it is bullying and harassment. That is unacceptable.

I posses moderation powers only in the court areas, but if I ever see that kind of behavior occurring in them I will treat it appropriately.

 

[Gaspo]

I'm generally in agreement with Bel and GBM on this. I only motioned it to a vote so that it would fail and we could all move on. Let's move on now.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

My point isn't actually about the bill itself, I could care less if it passes or not and I view the whole thing as nothing more than an amusing joke, just like the Bigfoot Act or the Flem for God law.

However, TNP is suppose to be a democracy, and that means we allow people to express their viewpoint no matter how strongly you disagree with them so long as they do it in a respectful manner. That bill, despite its intent, was respectfully written, debated without insults or poor language, and dismissed by the Speaker for being proposed by "fuckwits". If anyone has been disrespectful to any party here, it would be the Speaker for directly insulting members of the Regional Assembly.

People may not agree with the bill, but it has broken no laws, been submitted in accordance to every regulation of TNP, did not violate the ToS of the forum, and was thrown out for a totally illegitimate and frivolous reason.

If this is allowed to be done on this bill, what is preventing the Speaker from blocking every bill he doesn't quite like in a similar fashion?

 

[Chasmanthe]

To motion for a vote to see it fail when you are quite capable of arguing against it, seems mean-spirited to me.

Letting an ill-thought-out proposal fail is meaningless when you could have encouraged the region make an informed choice on the issue.

It was not meant as a joke it was meant to let the assembly decide if the harrassment of Gov is acceptable. Can you live in a region that accepts the harrassment of Gov? Well we already do, so this is just putting it into words.

If calling it a mean-spirited joke is the only resolution then fine, call it that. I think the Speaker acted justifiably, it's just disappointing.

 

[Gaspo]

If your goal is a discussion of the region's harassment of Gov, then there are plenty of places to have that conversation. Proposing a BoR amendment to do it isn't really the best route.

BW is right though; this thread is for a question about constitutional powers. Not for anything else. Let's let the courts decide on that particular issue; if we want to talk about harassment of Gov, I suspect there are a few places in the RA where such a thread would be appropriate.

 

[Hileville]

The Court will review this matter.

 

[Flemingovia]

Your honours,

Part of the role of the Speaker is to maintatin the workings and dignity of the regional assembly. The Bill of Rights should not be allowed to become a smokescreen to allow harassment, bullying or a witch hunt.

During my watch as Speaker the Regional Assembly will not be host to such undignified and unworthy behaviour. That is why the thread was closed on sight, and rightly so.

And to be honest I am astonished at people scurrying to the courts in an attempt to sanction their right to bully. For shame.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Actually, that bill only handed out the right to ban one nation, and only by the vice-delegate, whom would first have to take over for the delegate, and only if it passed by 2/3 majority, and only if the Delegate didn't veto it, any of which was rather unlikely.

Bullying? Harassment? Witch Hunt? Hardly. Not a single ill word was uttered about the subject of the bill in the entire thread.

 

[Eluvatar]

Constitutional or Bill of Rights amendments are not subject to Delegate veto.

 

[punk d]

Actually, that bill only handed out the right to ban one nation, and only by the vice-delegate, whom would first have to take over for the delegate, and only if it passed by 2/3 majority, and only if the Delegate didn't veto it, any of which was rather unlikely.

Bullying? Harassment? Witch Hunt? Hardly. Not a single ill word was uttered about the subject of the bill in the entire thread.

Usually I'm with you BW, but not on this one.

This bill singles out one person. I've come in contact with so many people who honestly believe that Govindia has harrased them in RL. However, accusation is very different from something that's proven.

I do think though, that the review is about the speaker having a unilateral ability to close debate on a subject and on that point while I agree in principle with Flem regarding this as a bullying tactic, I don't think he has the legally supported latitude to make that judgement. Could be wrong, but I think any bill with support would have to go to the full body.

 

[Govindia]

If it so please the court.

It is socially acceptable to bully and victimize Govindia. Blue Wolf has banned Ramaba before, it's reasonable that his intention to do it again is for real. I was going on the assumption that nobody substantially objects to Blue Wolf's intentions, therefore they are considered acceptable. This undermines the values expressed in the Bill of Rights, if we as a society favour Blue Wolf's discretion over the Bill of Rights, it makes the Bill of Rights irrelevant. I am not happy with that, I want to preserve the rule of law. The way to do that is to legitimize Blue Wolf's intent.

Did I not make my intentions clear?

If Flemingovia is always right then I must be a fuckwit then. I must be wrong.

No it is not socially acceptable to bully and victimise myself, OR ANYONE ELSE.

Get that through your thick head right now, everyone.

 

[Govindia]

My point isn't actually about the bill itself, I could care less if it passes or not and I view the whole thing as nothing more than an amusing joke, just like the Bigfoot Act or the Flem for God law.

However, TNP is suppose to be a democracy, and that means we allow people to express their viewpoint no matter how strongly you disagree with them so long as they do it in a respectful manner. That bill, despite its intent, was respectfully written, debated without insults or poor language, and dismissed by the Speaker for being proposed by "fuckwits". If anyone has been disrespectful to any party here, it would be the Speaker for directly insulting members of the Regional Assembly.

People may not agree with the bill, but it has broken no laws, been submitted in accordance to every regulation of TNP, did not violate the ToS of the forum, and was thrown out for a totally illegitimate and frivolous reason.

If this is allowed to be done on this bill, what is preventing the Speaker from blocking every bill he doesn't quite like in a similar fashion?

The law was about me. I didn't find it funny.

Whatever your issue is with me BW, get it out of this region and grow up or resign as Vice Delegate if you can't do your job properly and follow the laws.

 

[Gaspo]

. . . only if it passed by 2/3 majority . . .

3/4 majority, for Bill of Rights. Not to be pedantic, but

 

[Chasmanthe]

That is different notions of "acceptable"

I meant that TNP society accepts it. I didn't mean it's ethically acceptable. You could argue there is no such thing as ethics. The Bill of Rights is there for a reason because it is based on "ethics" that people believed in. If the "ethics" of the society have shifted to render such protection irrelevant then the law needs to shift in order to stay relevant. Logically.

Blue Wolf showed us behaviour which is unethical but it seemed to be accepted by TNP as a society.

As to the question at hand, the Speaker had authority to act to prevent violation of clause 5:

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

Amending the bill of rights to victimize a nation can be construed as an abuse of the powers of the regional assembly, as expressed in the oath:

I, [forum user name], leader of The North Pacific nation of (your TNP nation's name), pledge loyalty to the region, to abide by its laws, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may immediately lose my voting privileges, permanently. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

 

[Gaspo]

Constitution, Article 2 Clause 6

6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

I think that should about settle this.

As noted previously, the Speaker has considerable latitude in the way in which he or she administers the Regional Assembly. It will be up to the courts to decide where that discretion reaches its limit.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Amending the bill of rights to victimize a nation can be construed as an abuse of the powers of the regional assembly, as expressed in the oath:

I, [forum user name], leader of The North Pacific nation of (your TNP nation's name), pledge loyalty to the region, to abide by its laws, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may immediately lose my voting privileges, permanently. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

Are you saying you violated your oath when you proposed that bill, Chasmanthe?

resign as Vice Delegate if you can't do your job properly and follow the laws.

You are all welcome to attempt to Recall me if you do not feel I have correctly executed my duties as Vice-Delegate or, in so way, violated a written law of TNP. I feel like, these day, I'm just not doing my job correctly if I don't have at least one person after my head on a plate or an attempt recall against me on the books.

 

[Chasmanthe]

Are you saying you violated your oath when you proposed that bill, Chasmanthe?

No, I would never knowingly do so. I was merely rationalizing the speaker's action.

 

[Govindia]

Are you saying you violated your oath when you proposed that bill, Chasmanthe?

No, I would never knowingly do so. I was merely rationalizing the speaker's action.

Yes, you did, the both of you. The bill was a violation of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Terms of Service.

 

[Hileville]

Thread is now locked the Court will review the matter.

 

[Flemingovia]

The thread concerning this matter was locked on 18th December so that the court could review the issue. since the alleged misconduct concerned myself, i was looking forward to a resolution of the matter.

has the court yet reached a decision? if so, where is it?

 

[Gaspo]

A decision has been drafted and is being edited - my apologies for the delays.

 

[Chasmanthe]

Apologies accepted, your honour.

We can be patient North Pacificans.

I look forward also to knowing whether my Fiqh case will be heard or dismissed.

 

[Hileville]

A ruling will be delivered later this evening.

 

[Flemingovia]

Thank you. It is good to know this was not forgotten.

 

[Hileville]

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​

In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Blue Wolf II on the Speakers Powers​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Blue Wolf II.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant Section of the Constitution of the North Pacific:

6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

The Court opines the following:

The court has before it the seemingly simple question of whether the Speaker is within his rights to end debate on proposal unilaterally, potentially barring motions to vote, without giving cause. The Court confines its opinion on this matter to the facts of this case in particular, in which the proposal which was closed was highly controversial and prompted not-insignificant Moderation actions. The court will, however, clarify its understanding and opinion of the Speaker's discretion with regard to closing discussions, so that future Speakers will have some guidance going forward.

Looking first to the case at hand, we find a thread seeking to amend the Bill of Rights to legalize extrajudicial action against a particular citizen. This proposal would not have passed Constitutional muster, and would have been in direct conflict with the very document it sought to amend. It could never have become law. As such, it is reasonable to say that the discussion in question lacked merit, viability, and legality. This finding will have bearing on our final ruling.

The Constitution grants discretion to the Speaker as follows:

6. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.

The Constitution, Legal Code, and RA Rules are all completely devoid of any additional reference to the Speaker's discretionary powers. Nor are there any rules outlining how the Regional Assembly's business is to be conducted, which have bearing on this matter. As such, the Constitution's grant of discretion to the Speaker in administering the Regional Assembly is the only binding law on this issue.

The question is raised, however, as to whether or not the actions taken using this discretionary power violate the Bill of Rights. This Court believes that they do not. Nations do possess a right to freedom of speech, and the government may not impede that right, but this restriction must be balanced against the demands of a civilized society, which encourages equal treatment of all its citizens. Regardless of the personal feelings of any Regional Assembly member, the proposal in question was a targeted attempt to discriminate against a member of the region. In fact, the proposal would have violated several elements of the Bill of Rights and Legal Code. Furthermore, the target of this proposal had repeatedly asked for the harassment he felt he was experiencing to cease. Under these circumstances, the Speaker's actions are not a violation of the Bill of Rights for one simple reason:

. . . The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

The Speaker's actions were permitted under his discretion, and using his judgment he acted in the best interests of the region. If any Nation feels that the actions of a government official are in violation of these laws, the proper recourse is a recall proceeding, not a Court proceeding. Particularly not in circumstances such as these.

With that decided, the Court would take this opportunity to comment more broadly on the powers of the Speaker. Under the aforementioned Constitutional clause, the Speaker is granted broad discretion, where no rules exist, to administer the Regional Assembly as he or she sees fit. Under the Bill of Rights segment also mentioned previously, the Court believes that all government officials are obligated by law to act in good faith in discharging their duties. The Court believes that the Speaker does possess the right to unilaterally table proposals, if their continued debate is not reasonably in the best interests of the region. The Constitution grants this discretion, and the Bill of Rights in effect obligates the Speaker to exercise said discretion if he or she feels it is appropriate. If the Nations of The North Pacific disagree, the procedure for Recall is quite clear, and as has been demonstrated over the past few months, is quite accessible. Legal review of the Speaker's discretionary decisions is not, generally speaking, necessary.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

A very wishy-washy ruling, to say the least, but what I got out of what has to be the Court's longest ruling in quite some time is this: Yes, it is perfectly acceptable for Speakers to end debates on proposal unilaterally, potentially barring motions to vote, without giving cause.

Remind me to run for Speaker sometime solely to demonstrate how much unregulated power this ruling has now given to the position.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Alternatively, you could write some rules for the Speaker and propose it to the RA.

 

[Flemingovia]

I thank the court for its wise and studied ruling. Obviously, not all Speakers share the same degree of awesomeness and sheer brilliance. The iltellectual superiority of the speaker whose actions were questioned in this action was obviously not grasped by the knuckle-draggers who supported this inquiry.

I am grateful that the court showed itself to be a cut above such neaderthal dullness. Well done.

 

[Kiwi]

While I think the court got where it needed to go, I don't know if the decision was entirely where the law should go.

At any rate, it seems that the justices in question considered it carefully. Well done.

 

[Chasmanthe]

I thank the court of its diligence in this matter.

I think it is a shame that Flemingovia does not do me the simple courtesy of rejecting my request in the Temple Courts, which you may not be able to tell, was submitted in good faith.

I'm not sure if it's my place to comment, but I would question where is the place for the determination of merit, viability and legality of a proposal, considering that the proposal received a disingenuous motion to vote, which accelerated the closure of the discussion. Does it lie with the proponent, the other members, or the speaker?

I apologize for my failure to responsibly scrutinize, but I can only hope that all those who swear an oath to uphold the laws of The North Pacific consider this court ruling before they disrespect the rights of the individual nation.

Since the essence of the Bill of Rights cannot be changed to reflect the changing ethics of the people, I can only surmise that the people must indeed follow the Bill of Rights that they have voluntarily given their allegiance to. Although in practice, any failure to do so is no barrier to serving on the court.

Finally, I apologize for disregarding Gov's posts, as I would not gladly suffer the same treatment in reverse.