Please join the regional discord here for hilarious hijinks and deep discussion.(August 12, 2020)x
Hello Guest! If you have any suggestions for making this forum a better place, please enter them here and I will get to them as soon as possible.(February 17)x
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.
SLU Forum
