[Proposal] Criminal Code Amendment (February 2019)

[McChimp]

---

Criminal Code Amendment (February 2019)

Proposed By: McChimp

Preamble

This amendment of the Criminal Code Act (September 2018) criminalises opposition of wartime operations and incitement to commit a crime.

Section 1. Amendment of Section One

(1) Section one shall be amended to read:

(1) Any person who engages in conduct with the intention of: a. illegally removing or altering the Mandate, the Government or the Delegate, b. levying war or preparing to levy war against Lazarus, c. taking up arms against Lazarene operations conducted in the defence of allied regions d. taking up arms against Lazarene operations conducted within regions with which we are at war e. taking up arms against Lazarene operations conducted within allies or protectorates of regions with which we are at war that have been sanctioned by a resolution of the Assembly in accordance with Section 2 Subsection 4 of the Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard (December 2018) shall be guilty of treason.

Section 2. Amendment of Section Eleven

(1) Section eleven shall be amended to read:

(1) Any person who prepares, incites another or plans to commit an offence enumerated herein, shall be guilty of conspiracy to commit that offence.

---

A quick amendment ensuring that those who oppose our wartime operations can be prosecuted as traitors. Care has been taken to exclude R/D gameplay so that this law cannot be used to persecute raiders or defenders.

 

[Ryccia]

I must oppose this legislation. What if I oppose a war, and, therefore, its operations? To sabotage is one thing, yes, but to oppose is another. This will only confine the conscience of an individual in war, forcing them to support Lazarus unconditionally on what they see as wrong for the region or face being labelled a traitor.

This must not pass. My apologies.

Edit: Now that it is amended, this is a sufficient and necessary piece of legislation. Curious how just a few words may change the opinion of someone drastically, no?

 

[McChimp]

I must oppose this legislation. What if I oppose a war, and, therefore, its operations? To sabotage is one thing, yes, but to oppose is another. This will only confine the conscience of an individual in war, forcing them to support Lazarus unconditionally on what they see as wrong for the region or face being labelled a traitor.

This must not pass. My apologies.

Quite right, of course! I meant to militarily oppose, not to disagree with. Accidentally wrote a law that tapes over peoples' mouths XD. Oops.

Fixed that now.

 

[Lukatonia]

I support it. It seems reasonable for the current circumstances, but it needs more definition and context for it's wording such as treason should only be applicable to citizens and residents and not people outside of the region opposing Lazarus in R/D operations

 

[New Rogernomics]

a. illegally and willfully removing or altering the Mandate, the Government or the Delegate,

The problem with this section is that a law can accidently breach the mandate. Adding willfully would account for that.

 

[McChimp]

The problem with this section is that a law can accidently breach the mandate. Adding willfully would account for that.

The wording you have taken issue with has already passed into law. It's not an issue, though, because as it stands it says that it has to have been done "with the intention of illegally removing or altering the Mandate, the Government or the Delegate." Although the wording is different, "with the intention of" means as much as "willfully".

 

[New Rogernomics]

The problem with this section is that a law can accidently breach the mandate. Adding willfully would account for that.

The wording you have taken issue with has already passed into law. It's not an issue, though, because as it stands it says that it has to have been done "with the intention of

Okay.

 

[McChimp]

I support it. It seems reasonable for the current circumstances, but it needs more definition and context for it's wording such as treason should only be applicable to citizens and residents and not people outside of the region opposing Lazarus in R/D operations

It wouldn't make sense to restrict any crime to only citizens and residents. If that were the case, sentences could be avoided by renouncing citizenship and leaving and turning up later. If Cormac's current proposal passes (and I think it's set to) then there'll be a more efficient, blanket mechanism by which foreign forces could be proscribed anyway.
Regarding the matter of R/D, this law only applies to wartime operations so it excludes routine R/D. If a resident raider or defender fought against a war operation then I see no reason they should be treated differently to anybody else.

 

[Arlo]

I'm going to have to be against, pretty much just on principle. I don't think it is necessary that all citizens support all actions by the Lazarus government, and I don't regard opposition to military operations as particularly treasonous.

 

[Arlo]

As discussed on Discord -- I'm willing to support I guess if it is at least made more clear that "c" only applies in situations where Lazarus has declared a formal state of war. As explained I feel the current wording is insufficiently clear on that.

 

[McChimp]

As discussed on Discord -- I'm willing to support I guess if it is at least made more clear that "c" only applies in situations where Lazarus has declared a formal state of war. As explained I feel the current wording is insufficiently clear on that.

Following discord discussions I have tried to specify a list of valid war targets to which the law may be applied.

 

[Arlo]

Thank you, looks better.

Can we maybe break it up a bit? Like so:

c. taking up arms against Lazarene operations which are:
i. conducted in the defence of regions with which we are allies;
ii. within regions with which we are at war;
iii. within regions that are allies of regions with which we are at war and with which we are actively engaged; or
iv. within regions that are protectorates of regions with which we are at war

Maybe change the wording a bit too? Eliminate passive speak etc. For example "regions with which we are allies" could just be "allied regions".

 

[McChimp]

Thank you, looks better.

Can we maybe break it up a bit? Like so:

c. taking up arms against Lazarene operations which are:
i. conducted in the defence of regions with which we are allies;
ii. within regions with which we are at war;
iii. within regions that are allies of regions with which we are at war and with which we are actively engaged; or
iv. within regions that are protectorates of regions with which we are at war

Maybe change the wording a bit too? Eliminate passive speak etc. For example "regions with which we are allies" could just be "allied regions".

There isn't a legitimate lower level of formatting, but I've made an effort to split up defensive and offensive actions and eliminated passive speech where meaning isn't lost.

 

[Arlo]

I'm comfortable voting for now.

 

[McChimp]

I motion to vote

 

[Ryccia]

I shall second this motion.

 

[McChimp]

A voting thread has been opened here.

Voting will end on Thursday the 7th of February at 16:53 EST.