The following petition was received from Ranma Tardis:
As a elected and sworn member of the 19 Representational Assembly do object to the elimination of the Mosque in Locus Amoenus. It is a clear violation of the PREAMBLE of our Constitution.
All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to uphold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, local laws, the SL ToS, and Community Standards without exception. Since it servers are location within the United States of America, a violation of the civil rights act of 1964. Also Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VIII was amended in 1988 (effective March 12, 1989) by the Fair Housing Amendments Act, which:
The right to practice ones own religion without restraint is a guaranteed right. The fact that there were no Muslims during that time is nonsense. That it does not fit into the Covenants is more rubbish. We are a group of people who live for the people and government and not who has the most pretty sim. Picture how a Muslim would perceive such a ruling? What has been done is a very old trick used by racists throughout time. Yet I think it was a misunderstanding on the part of the officials and no malice was intended.
How this relates to me? Well I was effected by the fact it happened. I is very distressful to me as a person.
I am asking for a hearing of the Science council at the first opportunity.
Very Respectfully Submitted
Miss Ranma Tardis
Member 19th Representational Assembly
Confederation of Democratic Simulators
In reviewing this petition I have found and considered the following:
At its core this appears to be an issue of Covenant interpretation and enforcement, both falling within the duties of the Chancellor. The government body that oversees the Chancellor's performance of his or her duties is the Representative Assembly. Historically the Chancellor was appointed by the RA, and that body's oversight of the executive branch has remained, although the position of Chancellor is now an election by the citizenry.
In fact, a Constitutional amendment regarding the duties of the SC was defeated by RA specifically because of the following wording:
"The SC may review the outcome of any judicial decision or executive action and may invalidate any such decision or action if it is in violation of any of the founding or constitutional documents, the Code of Laws or the UDHR.
"
Casting his vote, Patrolkus Mirikami stated:
... The more difficult part is 'executive action'. As outlined in a previous post above, this gives the SC a new power to review decisions taken by the Chancellor. It does not have that power at the moment. We might think it would be good if the SC did have that power but I think that decision should only be taken after a proper debate. I can't support this Constitutional Amendment as currently drafted and, as the vote has been taken, we cannot go back and make changes. So I have to vote 'nay'.
Clearly the ability to oversee and invalidate acts of the Chancellor still lie with the RA.
In addition, from the Constitution:
in Article II, regarding the Chancellor
Section 7 – Removal from Office
The Chancellor may be removed from office prior to the expiration of the term of office by at least a two thirds vote of the Representative Assembly.
Section 8 – RA Oversight
Each month the Chancellor shall attend a meeting of the Representative Assembly, and fully and truthfully answer there any questions posed by any citizen about any aspect of the affairs of the CDS or of the Office of the Chancellor. The Chancellor will also attend upon three days notice at the written request from any member of the Representative Assembly.
Again, oversight and removal from office are explicitly named as actions of the RA.
Therefore, it is my opinion that this petition should not be heard by the Scientific Council; the petitioner should bring this before the Representative Assembly, as the arm of government that oversees the actions of the Executive.
I invite the other members of the SC to comment here, and give their opinion on whether or not the SC should hear this petition along with the rationale for their opinion.
I ask that SC members do so within 48 hours, so that the petitioner receives our response in a timely fashion.
Callipygian