View Topic

After the discussion with the rest of the Underhusen ...

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as Revocation of Govindia’s Citizenship.

Call for Govindia’s removal from Wintreath
        The Storting recognizes that Citizen Govindia has contributed to the region by actively taking part in elections and showing interest in our political system.

        Unfortunately, throughout his time in Wintreath, Govindia has persistently disturbed Citizens of Wintreath both in and out of the forums. This is evident in his constant harassment of Citizens in threads, PMs and the IRC chat for what he claims to be “disrespectful” to him. Despite polite requests to cease such behaviour, Govindia continues to bait others into starting arguments and flame anyone who disagrees with him despite the fact that he is often the one who starts the conflict by calling out people who he deems to be verbally attacking him when they are not. In this regard, the Storting acknowledges that Govindia has been previously banned from the IRC chat several times for such behaviour. 

        The Storting strongly believes that such behaviour, if remained unchecked, is detrimental to the community as a whole and compromises the very values that Wintreath stands for. It is also recognized that Govindia has been given a considerable number of chances to learn from past mistakes and that he has either willingly or unwilling failed to do so. As a result, the Storting hereby revokes the citizenship of Govindia.

Personally, I would really encourage the rest of the Citizens to comment on this as it concerns the community.

As I am the furthest from impartial I will not comment upon certain things of the act, however I do ask that the last line:

As a result, the Storting hereby revokes the citizenship of Govindia for an indefinite period of time.

Be removed due to the fact that after revocation, it is up to the person/group defined in the Demonym and Citizenship Act(which at this time is Wintermoot), if said person regains citizenship. That is, assuming that this passes, and that it isn't appealed.

I have removed "for an indefinite period of time".

Other than that I do not have any further comments. Doing so would be unwise for me to do.

It's understandable, thank you.

It's understandable, thank you.

I would like time to respond to this please.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

I would like time to respond to this please.

I do not have the power or the authority to provide you with additional time to respond. The existing laws, however, provide you with forty-eight hours starting from the time the bill is introduced in the Underhusen before any Skrifa is allowed to motion to vote unless there is a motion to expedite.

What Sapphiron said.  You are both welcomed and encouraged to respond, however the UH will go about it normally.  Time extensions cannot be given unless the UH feels more discussion is to be had, and likewise if a motion to expidite is passed, it will either go straight to vote or be tabled.

I would suggest allowing the 48 hour discussion period to pass in full - revoking citizenship is a serious decision, and what with the personal involvement of some members of the the current sitting I think it would be best to have a fully thought out discussion before any vote takes place.

Whatever other thoughts I have for the moment I'm going to keep to myself, as this Bill will most likely reach the Overhusen anyway and such thoughts are suitable for the appropriate time.

I can agree with this, and I think the law on expiditing should be amended to disinclude revocations or other serious matters on the list of things that can be expidited.

As it stands now, however, that's unfortunately not the case.  And if enough UH members wish it to be expidited, then I'm obliged to listen and make the motion.

(a) In matters of urgency, this two day period may be waived if the Speaker of the Assembly makes a motion to expedite and the motion is seconded by a Underhusen Representative.

It's on the Speaker's prerogative, not based on the majority wish of the UH members.

True, but I do this in a sense of fairness.  If I'm going to make a motion to cut the debate/discussion, then I want to make sure it's something the majority of the UH wants.

I would suggest allowing the 48 hour discussion period to pass in full - revoking citizenship is a serious decision, and what with the personal involvement of some members of the the current sitting I think it would be best to have a fully thought out discussion before any vote takes place.

My original post stands as is.

I can agree with this, and I think the law on expiditing should be amended to disinclude revocations or other serious matters on the list of things that can be expidited.

Let's not forget to do this at a later date.

Whatever other thoughts I have for the moment I'm going to keep to myself, as this Bill will most likely reach the Overhusen anyway and such thoughts are suitable for the appropriate time.

Same here.