View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as The Persona Non Grata Amendment Act.

Amendments
Section 4 of The Persona Non Grata Act is amended to read:

The Monarch shall have the authority to declare any non-Citizen persona non grata.

Section 5 of The Persona Non Grata  Act is amended to read:

The Storting shall have the authority to declare any non-Citizen persona non grata through a majority vote of both chambers.

Section 6 is added to The Person Non Grata Act, and the section reads as follows:

Both The Monarch and The Sorting can revoke any previous persona non grata declarations, with The Sorting doing this through a majority vote of both chambers

I have no problem with the way the PNG Act was worded. And as someone who has been on the enforcement side of it, I know it works.

I have no problem with the way the PNG Act was worded. And as someone who has been on the enforcement side of it, I know it works.

This edits the revoking of PNG. If the monarch makes someone PNG, the current act won't allow the sorting to change it. And vice versa. It is liable to misuse, and a bad sorting could get someone out of Wintreath and the monarch would find it hard to change that. I'm changing it so it is similar to the way revoking citizenship works.

Hmmm. Though I do have a problem with the Storting being able to override the Monarch, I see your point.

I feel like for extra measure we should make it supermajority through both chambers on Sections 5 and 6.

There seems lots of people wanting this, so how about:

Title
1. This act is to be cited as The Persona Non Grata Amendment Act.

Amendments
Section 4 of The Persona Non Grata Act is amended to read:

The Monarch shall have the authority to declare any non-Citizen persona non grata.

Section 5 of The Persona Non Grata  Act is amended to read:

The Storting shall have the authority to declare any non-Citizen persona non grata through a supermajority (2/3) vote of both chambers.

Section 6 is added to The Person Non Grata Act, and the section reads as follows:

Both The Monarch and The Sorting can revoke any previous persona non grata declarations, with The Sorting doing this through a supermajority (2/3) vote of both chambers.

I don't necessarily see this as necessary, or even desirable, for the most part. As such I am opposed to this act.

(I'll be posting what is essentially what I posted on Discord today, primarily reformatted for the most part. The raw logs are provided below this.)

My opposition to this act arises from a few places.

First this act is relatively unnecessary, as someone who was around during the drafting of the original Persona Non Grata Act, the choice to make decisions by one chamber responsible for that chamber was conscious. Generally the Storting and Monarchy defer to one another on matters that each other take, except for when the Storting or Monarchy requests input from the other. This enshrines the general separation between the two branches that the government of Wintreath enjoys, and is a part of the legal and political norm.

Additionally, the fear of a 'bad Storting' is partially unfounded, due to multiple reasons. First, is the fact that in order to declare someone Persona Non Grata, they would have to have their citizenship revoked, or not be citizens, as you can not declare citizens Persona Non Grata. Even if this were to be ignored, the Persona Non Grata declaration would revoke their citizenship, and as such is reversible, as citizenship revocations are able to be appealed. Second is the fact that the Storting is the Underhusen and Overhusen. The Overhusen is appointed entirely by the Monarch, and represents the Monarchy itself, as such the Overhusen generally will vote on matters as such. A baseless declaration would not be in the Monarchy's interests, and as such would generally be rejected by the Overhusen. Additionally, any Skrifa can face a recall petition at an time by any person who voted in the prior regular election, such a petition can even be brought by the Monarch if necessary. As such it would require a concerted effort to even get this far, as you would need a majority of voters and a majority within the Underhusen.

A baseless, fraudulent, or frivolous attempt at a Persona Non Grata declaration will likely lead the person, or people, to face recall as it is not going to be tolerated by any person here in Wintreath. If a declaration was supported by the citizenry, and not by the monarchy, then I would not necessarily thing the declaration to be merit-less as the person would not be able to participate broadly in Wintreath regardless, the relationship would be filled with toxicity. Further, to get to the point where the Storting intervenes and declares someone Persona Non Grata, is to get to a grave point that has only happened once in our five year history, and that one point was an exception. It took an excruciatingly long time to get there, and many, many chances were given. Many chances to change were made. All of them were thrown away or wasted. However, if future circumstances change and a declaration might need to be rescinded, then the community can elect people to the Underhusen to repeal a declaration by the Storting.

With declarations from the monarchy, Wintermoot has declared multiple people Persona Non Grata, reasons have always been given, and Wintermoot has always been open to rescinding declarations if people change. As such I see little controlling reason to open this to the Storting, especially since Wintermoot is not hard to reach, nor is he too closed off. I have even discussed rescinding the PnG status of at least one person, and while we disagreed in the end, it was a worthwhile discussion to have.

In the end, the fear of a rogue Underhusen trying to 'get someone out of Wintreath', with the Monarch having little ability to do anything, is baseless at best. A person would have to lose citizenship first, which can be appealed and then be declared Persona Non Grata. Additionally, doing so would have to go through the Overhusen which is unlikely to let it fly, and would have to be supported by the citizenry in order to pass.

Logs

7:02 PM] Chanku: My opposition to the Speaker Election act is generally because I don't think there is that much of a problem at this time,
[7:03 PM] Chanku: Additionally my opposition to the PnG Act is that the act is, at best, useless and unnecessary.
[7:04 PM] Chanku: It is attempting to fix something that was deliberately designed that way.
[7:05 PM] Chanku: As the Overhusen is appointed entirely by the Monarch, and it represents the interests of the Monarchy.
[7:06 PM] Chanku: Additionally you can only declare someone, that is not a citizen PnG, and only a handful of people have been declared PnG by the Monarch. Only one person has been declared PnG by the Storting, which was an exceptional case.
[7:07 PM] Chanku: In order to declare any person PnG through the Storting you would have to have a concerted effort to take control of a majority of the Underhusen, and then pass an act to declare them Persona Non Grata, which needs to pass through the Overhusen.
[7:08 PM] Chanku: They would have to be a non-citizen as well, and if you lacked good reasons and was passed by the UH, then I would be among the many people who would sign the recall petition.
[7:09 PM] Chanku: If they were a citizen you would have to amend the law, or revoke their citizenship first, which again would probably lead to a recall.
[7:10 PM] Chanku: If someone is declared PnG by the Storting, which is a representation of our community and the monarchy, then they should only be able to lose that status by an act of the Storting.
[7:11 PM] Chanku: Additionally, the power for the Monarch declare someone PnG is granted through the Persona Non Grata act. So the Storting can decide that an exception to the law is warranted in a case, although generally the Monarch only does so in exceptional or necessary circumstances.
[7:12 PM] Chanku: also I would imagine Wintermoot would be swayed by arguments in favor for rescinding some PnG declarations.

In response to the Right Honourable Speaker Chanku I will provide my point-by-point rebuttal.

The first point seems to lack any other reasoning aside from "political norm", which I frankly don't care about nor have I ever cared about. In addition, the analogy made doesn't even seem to sufficiently defend said tradition. If anything, it defends the bill itself, since the bill advocates for a check and balance system between the Monarchy and the Storting. If the Overhusen, which represents the Monarchy so is said, doesn't approve of a PNG bill, they can simply fail it.

The second point suffers a similar problem. It does not answer the fear of a "bad Storting" and instead goes on a ramble about the logistics of declaring a Citizen PNG, which seems solvable enough. Simply revoke the citizenship of the person in question and then declare them PNG, such as was done with Govindia. This bill doesn't claim to represent a common situation.

Regarding the point about what I'll call the "Social Ostracization" theory of problematic citizens, I don't think that works at all, and I know this from experience in other regions. People are more likely to tolerate problematic citizens than to start a scene about it. Nobody claimed anything about a fraudulent or baseless PNG, which even if it was, it could still be failed by the Overhusen as I stated previously.

I do see the point about giving too much power to the storting and not enough to the Monarch, which is a point many people have brought up. I proposed increasing the voting threshold to supermajority as a compromise and people seemed to agree.

The final point seems to contradict the rest of the argument. This bill isn't trying to prevent a rogue Underhusen from declaring someone PNG, and the fact that you agree seems to fall in line with the bill itself.

In response to the Right Honourable Speaker Chanku I will provide my point-by-point rebuttal.

The first point seems to lack any other reasoning aside from "political norm", which I frankly don't care about nor have I ever cared about. In addition, the analogy made doesn't even seem to sufficiently defend said tradition. If anything, it defends the bill itself, since the bill advocates for a check and balance system between the Monarchy and the Storting. If the Overhusen, which represents the Monarchy so is said, doesn't approve of a PNG bill, they can simply fail it.

The second point suffers a similar problem. It does not answer the fear of a "bad Storting" and instead goes on a ramble about the logistics of declaring a Citizen PNG, which seems solvable enough. Simply revoke the citizenship of the person in question and then declare them PNG, such as was done with Govindia. This bill doesn't claim to represent a common situation.

Regarding the point about what I'll call the "Social Ostracization" theory of problematic citizens, I don't think that works at all, and I know this from experience in other regions. People are more likely to tolerate problematic citizens than to start a scene about it. Nobody claimed anything about a fraudulent or baseless PNG, which even if it was, it could still be failed by the Overhusen as I stated previously.

I do see the point about giving too much power to the storting and not enough to the Monarch, which is a point many people have brought up. I proposed increasing the voting threshold to supermajority as a compromise and people seemed to agree.

The final point seems to contradict the rest of the argument. This bill isn't trying to prevent a rogue Underhusen from declaring someone PNG, and the fact that you agree seems to fall in line with the bill itself.

Just saying, the second draft makes both the vote and override a supermajority for the Sorting, as that is what most have wanted.

@Chanku, you said it wasn't desirable, but didn't mention that in your post. Could you elaborate on how it is bad, rather than defeating what might be good?

The first point seems to lack any other reasoning aside from "political norm", which I frankly don't care about nor have I ever cared about. In addition, the analogy made doesn't even seem to sufficiently defend said tradition. If anything, it defends the bill itself, since the bill advocates for a check and balance system between the Monarchy and the Storting. If the Overhusen, which represents the Monarchy so is said, doesn't approve of a PNG bill, they can simply fail it.

I must echo what Taulover said in the Citizen's Platform topic, in that the separation of the branches of government are a foundational concept in our government. It does not, generally, equate to checks and balances, instead it equates to a lack of direct interference between the Storting and the Monarchy, outside of rare circumstances. This is so strong that I was once recalled because I attempted to violate this concept, in addition to acting that was not proper for a Skrifa, let alone the Speaker. In another instance, I abused my position as Prince of Wintreath to speak within the Underhusen freely, which later lead to that authority being limited to the Monarch. As Taulover said, our branches are separate to the point where one can not really interfere in the other, and doing so would require extraordinary circumstances.

The second point suffers a similar problem. It does not answer the fear of a "bad Storting" and instead goes on a ramble about the logistics of declaring a Citizen PNG, which seems solvable enough. Simply revoke the citizenship of the person in question and then declare them PNG, such as was done with Govindia. This bill doesn't claim to represent a common situation.

Again Taulover makes my point better than I possible could. The Revocation for Govindia was not a mere formality, it was done to punish him, to show him we considered his actions wrong, in a hope that he would change and we would be able to allow him back in. Obviously this didn't work, and in the end the relationship became worse and the community decided we should declare him Persona Non Grata for everyone's sake, and thus the Storting did that, as it was a community decision.

Additionally you didn't really address the point that the Overhusen represents the Monarchy, as such the Monarch would have to appoint a bad Overhusen, which is very unlikely.

Regarding the point about what I'll call the "Social Ostracization" theory of problematic citizens, I don't think that works at all, and I know this from experience in other regions. People are more likely to tolerate problematic citizens than to start a scene about it. Nobody claimed anything about a fraudulent or baseless PNG, which even if it was, it could still be failed by the Overhusen as I stated previously.

I feel Taulover more than adequately responded to this point.

The final point seems to contradict the rest of the argument. This bill isn't trying to prevent a rogue Underhusen from declaring someone PNG, and the fact that you agree seems to fall in line with the bill itself.

Except that Syraj has expressed it is due to the fact that a rogue Underhusen/Storting could do these things. If it is not due to that, then I fail to see the point or the reason behind this bill.

I want to get this out in the open. This act doesn't do that much. The act was partly for a rouge sorting, but mostly on principle to mirror the way you remove citizenship. And finally, it covers the possibility that the person is better, but the monarch/sorting doesn't want them back.

I want to get this out in the open. This act doesn't do that much. The act was partly for a rouge sorting, but mostly on principle to mirror the way you remove citizenship. And finally, it covers the possibility that the person is better, but the monarch/sorting doesn't want them back.

Except there are fundamental differences in why the procedures are handled differently that I think you are missing.

First, when you revoke citizenship, you are removing someone's legal protections within Wintreath. Additionally, citizens are guaranteed due process and as such have the right to appeal such a decision. While a citizenship revocation is, in the end, more of a slap on the wrist at best, and a minor inconvenience at worst, it happens frequently, and often due to failing to meet the requirements. It is possible that the person in charge of that makes a mistake while checking the requirements and revokes it accidentally, in which case it can be appealed or reversed. Finally, in order to reverse a revocation it requires the person who lost it to appeal, it is an action that one must take. This means that the person must also have a reason for appealing, or believe the revocation to not be legal or to be in error.

However a Persona Non Grata declaration is much, much more severe than a citizenship revocation, and happens extremely rarely. It is the most censure our community and government can give to a person. They are prohibited from being ambassadors, citizens, and are generally prohibited by administration to be a part of our community. These people have violated Wintrean values and ideals, or have attacked or caused harm to Wintreath or our allies in some way. For example, the PnG declaration of Govindia was due to his inability, or refusal, to change for the better while harming our community and we felt it was time to end the relationship completely as Govindia refused to move on. With the ones that the Monarch has levied they have either couped a region, attacked core values of Wintreath -- such as homophobia or transphobia -- or have attacked the community, or several members of the community (in addition to the rest). These members generally have little desire to join our community in the first place. A Persona Non Grata declaration is the last thing in an extremely long list of things that can occur, so when they are levied they are rarely lifted, and for good reason.

Your fear of an unjust monarch is irrational here, Wintermoot is easy to reach and talk to. If you have a decent argument as to why he should rescind a PnG declaration, then he will likely agree and consider it, or even do it. However, one has not been given yet. A simple discussion with the Monarch will allow for one to at least understand his point of view, and often times it is agreeable, or understandable. A fear of the Storting being unwilling to review or reverse their own PnG is not entirely rational either, as the Underhusen represents the community and if the community doesn't want someone here, then it is likely that they will not stay here long anyway. If the community believes that someone has changed, then they will elect people who will vote to rescind a declaration, otherwise they won't. A PnG declaration by the Storting is much more final, and should be much more final, in my opinion, as it is the last line in a very long community process. The Storting has issued a PnG declaration one time, and exactly one time, in the case of Govindia, a case which I am unsure he will ever change due to the evidence backing that up.

Further, I wish to state that in my entire time of being here there has been exactly one PnG declaration I think should potentially be rescinded, and that is Cormac's. Cormac has shown a willingness to defend Wintermoot/Wintreath abroad, even when it wasn't in his interests to do so, and I've talked to Wintermoot about it. While we walked away not entirely agreeing, I understood his reasons for keeping it, and decided to not press the issue further. While I still feel similarly, I can agree, in part, that the PnG declaration has some reasons for it standing against him.

Right, so since it seems that it's been a while since any debate happened, I motion to vote.

It's been a day since I responded, perhaps give it another day.

Edit: Also please update the OP with the amended version in order to make it clear-er what is being discussed and to make it easier on me when I bring it to a vote.