[GA - Passed] Legal Equality Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Legal Equality Act
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5, Co-authored by: Chipoli | Onsite Topic​

Recognising the importance of equality under the law in ensuring justice and stability in society,

Concerned by the lack of legislation or mechanisms to enforce the rule of law since "Equal Justice Under Law" was repealed,

Determined to ensure that the principle of equality under law is maintained in all member nations, in order to deliver equity and justice to their subjects,

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force.



  1. All individuals and juridical persons under the jurisdiction of a member nation, as well as that member nation itself, must be held fully accountable under all applicable laws of that member nation.

  2. Where allowed under past or future standing World Assembly law and regardless of Section 1, member nations may
    1. enact measures such as commutations and pardons, including refraining from prosecuting a case, where said measures demonstrably protect a public interest which (i) outweighs the public's interest in accountability under the law and (ii) clearly necessitates the enactment of such measures;

    2. grant immunity to actions which are conducted in the scope of legislative or judicial activity, such as casting ballots, testifying in court, or adjudicating on a trial, yet excluding criminal prosecution; or

    3. allow entities tasked with conducting public functions to engage in otherwise-unlawful acts which are demonstrably necessary for said entities to be able to effectively conduct said functions.

  3. Administrative and political subdivisions of member nations must comply with this resolution as member nations.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
12110
 
Last edited:
I don't have anything to add beyond what I said on discord and the edits made to the beginning of the text about "juridical persons".

Edit: against, see below.
 
Last edited:
(Non-WA) I am for this proposal. It concisely protects a fundamental civil right.
 
Last edited:
Non WA against. The usage of 'public interest' truly makes that pardons clause useless. A nation could argue that it is in the public interest for a politician to not go to prison for drink driving because a fascist candidate from another party could take their seat in a by-election. A nation could argue that a corporation should not be prosecuted for repeatedly violating health and safety laws because the jobs that would be lost if the company closed down would destroy the economy and thus not be in the public's interest.
 
Honeydewistan:
Non WA against. The usage of 'public interest' truly makes that pardons clause useless. A nation could argue that it is in the public interest for a politician to not go to prison for drink driving because a fascist candidate from another party could take their seat in a by-election. A nation could argue that a corporation should not be prosecuted for repeatedly violating health and safety laws because the jobs that would be lost if the company closed down would destroy the economy and thus not be in the public's interest.
Click to expand...
This is plainly bad faith. Public interest is a term with a meaning in law. Preventing a fascist candidate from another party does not "clearly necessitate" pardoning said politician. If the member nation truly cared that much about the public's interest in not having said fascist candidate win a seat, it would just prohibit fascist candidates. Likewise, the public's interest in having a slightly larger job market does not "clearly necessitate" not prosecuting said corporation.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Likewise, the public's interest in having a slightly larger job market does not "clearly necessitate" not prosecuting said corporation.
Click to expand...
Both of these are simply how you frame it. What if a member nation says 'the public's interest in Amazon Factory XYZ remaining open clearly necessitates not closing the corporation down'? Or 'the public's interest in Politician John Smith continuing to remain in office clearly necessitates not prosecuting him'? Obviously, by generalising the issue and widening the scope nothing really is 'clearly necessitated'.
 
Honeydewistan:
Both of these are simply how you frame it. What if a member nation says 'the public's interest in Amazon Factory XYZ remaining open clearly necessitates not closing the corporation down'? Or 'the public's interest in Politician John Smith continuing to remain in office clearly necessitates not prosecuting him'? Obviously, by generalising the issue and widening the scope nothing really is 'clearly necessitated'.
Click to expand...
You're just moving the goalposts now. Anyway, the resolution states that the measures (pardons, commutations, etc) must "demonstrably" meet the criteria, placing the burden of proof on the member nation. Unless the member nation can, in fact, show that "the public's interest in Amazon Factory XYZ remaining open clearly necessitates not closing the corporation down" (and merely making a vague statement to that effect does not demonstrate the assertion's veracity); as well as that the public's interest in said factory remaining open outweighs the public's interest in holding it accountable under the law; it is in non-compliance.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
This is plainly bad faith. Public interest is a term with a meaning in law. Preventing a fascist candidate from another party does not "clearly necessitate" pardoning said politician. If the member nation truly cared that much about the public's interest in not having said fascist candidate win a seat, it would just prohibit fascist candidates. Likewise, the public's interest in having a slightly larger job market does not "clearly necessitate" not prosecuting said corporation.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the reverse of the argument back in GA#617 over "best interest" of the child?
 
For
Magecastle has answered concerns admirably on this thread and as such I see no logical reason to vote against.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
That was an entirely different resolution with entirely different circumstances.
Click to expand...

Against. "Public interest" is also a concept that varies between US states and between countries. I would not be surprised if an eventual repeal is passed on these grounds.

Also, as Comfed explained on the MoWAA staff discord, and he put it far more succinctly than I could, "countries operating under a civil law system could legislatively determine the public interest to be whatever they wished as opposed to it being defined by some sort of judicial test".

The public interest case laws accumulated (say in the US) would not apply in a civil law jurisdiction that can override case law with legislation.

Edit: you also have issues on the prerogative of the Crown in Great Britain, but that again requires a fairly deep understanding of English constitutional law. @Kenmoria wrote a very long and detailed argument against this resolution which is on the WA staff discord.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top