I am proposing Amendment 8 to the World Assembly Membership Requirement Waiver Resolution, which would grant a waiver to "Wascoitan in SLU" (aka Wasc).
AWARE of the fascist nature of the political movement known as "Boogaloo Bois," who routinely provoke civil unrest in an attempt to inspire race war; NOTING that incumbent Chancellor Ramelia defended conduct of these "Boogaloo Bois" on a regional communication platform on 2 December 2020, saying the group was "doing god's work," and continued to defend the group after being notified of the group's fascist ideology; RECOGNIZING that fascist terrorism is indefensible and vile, and that apologia for groups which commit such acts of terrorism is not befitting of an officer of the Social Liberal Union; REAFFIRMING the Open Parliament's commitment to vigilantly combat fascism and other hateful ideologies or organizations; AWARE that the Constitution of the Social Liberal Union allows for the removal of officials who fail to perform their duties of office or commit other forms of egregious misconduct; HEREBY relieves Ramelia of the office of Chancellor of the Social Liberal Union.
Since the pitiful covert incursion upon our Discord server by a disgruntled DSA citizen in September this year, which originally inspired me to write the first two sections in the bill before you, this draft has been in the works and eventually expanded in scope to fix several errors or ambiguities in existing offences along the way (three, to be exact) in this consolidated bill.
Accordingly, I submit the bill to the Open Parliament for scrutiny and debate as required by the Constitution of the SLU.
Preamble: "This Act Amendment establishes a new offence and expands the definition of perjury to address vulnerabilities raised by a recent incursion against our region in which the privacy and good faith of its Member States was violated by way of deception by foreign actors. This Act Amendment also makes minor technical or grammatical revisions to several existing serious offences, without altering them substantively or altering their offence classifications in any way."
Unofficial summary of the provisions of the bill:
1) The first section substantially expands criminal liability for perjury (an existing offence) when a State lies or misrepresents to a SLU government official acting in their official duties regarding any material fact concerning their identity (to discourage impersonation), in-game military and political affiliations, or their provenance (i.e. their NS region of origin if a foreigner, etc) to gain (or attempt to) access/admission to specified SLU websites, servers, or networks.
2) The second section establishes a novel offence for violation-of-trust situations when a State has already obtained access/admission to a SLU website or server. Normally espionage is committed against the governmental, military, or executive power, however, this offence now harshly punishes espionage against SLU Member States in their individual capacities as well in their capacities as Members of Parliament to protect freedom of debate and parliamentary privilege. To protect the former, the section protects non-governmental civilian conversations, containing sensitive things such as real names, physical/mental health matters, and other specified personally identifying information from exportation, disclosure, or abstraction by foreign actors or disguised covert States. To protect the latter, the section protects civilian discussions related to SLU elections, laws, and other parliamentary and internal political matters.
3) See the proposed before-and-after comparison of the existing offence the third section of this bill seeks to amend here (opens on diffchecker.com).
4) See the proposed before-and-after comparison of the existing offence the fourth section of this bill seeks to amend here (opens on diffchecker.com).
5) See the proposed before-and-after comparison of the existing offence the fifth section of this bill seeks to amend here (opens on diffchecker.com).
Article 1. Operators and Actions
Section 1. Definitions
For the purposes of this Act, the following are hereby defined:
Clause 1. A “Petitioner” is an individual nation which officially requests government information through the procedures outlined in this Act.
Clause 2. A “Request” is an official request or appeal from a Petitioner in the form of an application to the designated government official that government Record(s) be made available to them.
Clause 3. A “Record” is official or unofficial government information that has been intentionally or unintentionally compiled or recorded, and may be the subject of the Request.
Clause 4. An “Official” is an elected or appointed government officer who has been designated to handle FOIA requests on behalf of the government or by this Act.
Clause 5. “Information” is qualitative or quantitative data which may be of interest to the requesting Petitioner and be the subject of the FOIA request.
Clause 6. An “Exemption” is a legal reason claimed by the designated government official in which access to the requested information can be legally denied as outlined in Article 2, Section 1 of this Act.
Clause 7. A “Denial of Request” occurs when the designated government official claims one or more exemptions as outlined in this Act, and denies the Petitioner access to the information detailed in their Request.
Clause 8. An “Appeal” is a formal request by the Petitioner to the Court of Justice to review the regional government's denial of their Request and pass down judgement on its legality.
Clause 9. A “Judicial Override” occurs when the Court of Justice determines in its proceedings that the government's claim of exemption in relation to its rejection of an FOIA Request was not valid, and that the information detailed in the Request should therefore be released to the Petitioner.
Article 2. Administration
Section 1. Executive Responsibility
The administration of Freedom of Information requests will be handled by the World Assembly Delegate or any Cabinet member who has been so designated by the Delegate. This information must be made public to the Open Parliament.
Section 2. Role Delegation
The Delegate or otherwise designated government official is responsible for conferring with other Cabinet members and intelligence officials to determine if the requested information meets any of the previously mentioned exemptions.
Section 3. Time Constraints
All FOIA Requests must be approved - and all requested information released to the Petitioner - or denied by a maximum of 14 days from its submission to the designated government official by telegram or by private message on any regional communication platform.
Section 4. Request Form
To appropriately submit an FOIA Request Form, the Petitioner must fill out and submit the following to the World Assembly Delegate or otherwise designated government official:
Personal Information
Nation Name: __________________
Residency Status: __________________
Are you a current government official?: __________________
Requested Information
Relevant Ministry or Agency: __________________
Time Period of Requested Information: __________________
Information Type: __________________
Information/Record(s) Being Requested: __________________
Section 5. Form Incompletion
Failure to complete an FOIA Request Form will result in the denial of the Request.
Section 6. Expedition of Request
Special expediting of an FOIA Request may be asked of the Court of Justice, but is subject to their discretion upon the request’s feasibility and inclusion of valid reasoning.
Article 3. Exemptions
Section 1. Exempt Information
The following exemptions provide a legal basis for denial of an FOIA Request. The government may deny a request if:
Clause 1. The divulgence of the requested information may create regional security challenges which will threaten the stability or continuance of the region.
Clause 2. The divulgence of the requested information contains personal identifying and/or sensitive information including but not limited to:
a. Real name
b. Location
c. Voting records otherwise kept anonymous by law
d. Bar exam information that would violate provisions established by law
e. Medical information and/or otherwise sensitive information provided exclusively within sensitive discussion channels
Clause 3. The divulgence of the requested information will put legal intelligence-gathering methods and/or officials at risk due to a clandestine nature of the operation and/or operators, or if it can be shown that doing so would lead to a decrease in the effectiveness of future legal intelligence-gathering operations using the methods which would be exposed.
Clause 4. The divulgence of the requested information can be proven to disrupt current legal investigations, be they criminal or civil in nature.
Clause 5. The divulgence of the requested information will lead to the identity of an anonymous source of a criminal or civil investigation or trial being revealed.
Clause 6. The divulgence of the requested information will deny an individual their right to due process under the law. This includes information that was explicitly barred from entering trial proceedings because of this nature.
Clause 7. The scope of the requested information is unreasonably broad and would place an exceptional burden on the official tasked with fulfilling such a request.
Section 2. Providing Exemptions
Clause 1. The World Assembly Delegate or otherwise designated government official must provide the requesting Petitioner the reason for which their Request was denied.
Clause 2. The Petitioner may appeal to the Court of Justice in order to reverse this exemption through a Judicial Override.
Clause 3. The designated government official must provide its reasoning for use of the exemption before the Court. The hearing before the Court is closed to the public.
Clause 4. The Court may then uphold the government's decision, or reverse it.
Clause 5. The Court of Justice holds the final legal authority concerning FOIA Requests.
In the matter of:
Courelli, in their capacity as Speaker of the Union, Plaintiff
v.
Brys Questions, a Member State, Defendant
Preliminary Statement
1) On or about 2 November 2020, upon the conclusion of the November 2020 Ministerial Election, Member State and Candidate Brys Questions published the following statement, which demanded, under threat of legal action, that electoral ties be resolved as established in the Constitution of the Social Liberal Union, even if an Act of Parliament establishes other procedures:
Quote:Dear Courelli,
Please take notice that it is the opinion of my campaign that the provisions of Article 5, Section 3 of the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act related to the breaking of a possible electoral tie by means other than by the Cabinet of the Social Liberal Union, insofar as they negate the provisions of Article 8, Section 5 of the Constitution, are either facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as-applied. Therefore, in the course of your canvass of the vote as required by law as Election Administrator I demand that ties be resolved as required by Article 8, Section 5 of the Constitution, notwithstanding any inferior Act of Parliament to the contrary. If you do not, I may take legal action.
Regards,
Brys Questions
2) I did not immediately reply; instead, the service of this complaint to the Defendant shall constitute my reply.
Jurisdiction
1) The Court of Justice has territorial jurisdiction over the government and officers of the Social Liberal Union per Article 3, Section 2 of the Legal Fundamentals Act.
2) The Court of Justice has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because it is a controversy arising from an Act of Parliament pursuant to Article 3, Section 4, Clause 5 of the Legal Fundamentals Act.
Parties
1) Plaintiff Courelli is a Member State of the Social Liberal Union, which has commenced this action in their official capacity as Speaker of the Union and Election Administrator of the November 2020 Ministerial Election.
2) Defendant Brys Questions is a Member State of the Social Liberal Union, which is being sued in this action in their private capacity as a Member State.
Claim for Relief
1) The primary claim for relief is sought pursuant to Article 5, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Legal Fundamentals Act, which states:
Quote:Declaratory judgements are the legal determination of the Court that resolves legal uncertainty for the parties. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask the Court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a case.
2) The conflicting provisions of the Constitution and the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act, as described in the Defendant's statement, create such a legal uncertainty, which prevents me from executing, in good conscience, my duties as Speaker of the Union and Election Administrator of the November 2020 Ministerial election.
3) Furthermore, this legal uncertainty is delaying the canvass of the results of the aforementioned election and hindering the business of the Open Parliament.
Request for Relief
Because the law, due to conflicting provisions, does not already provide a clear and specific remedy or mechanism for resolving this dispute and doing so would not disserve the public interest, we ask this Court to:
1) Issue a declaratory judgement affirming that the Constitution takes precedence over the provisions of Article 5, Section 3 of the Voting Reform and Fair Political Practices Act.
I, Courelli, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Social Liberal Union that the foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of November in the year 2020.
