Petition from Ranma Tardis

This forum is used for discussion by members of the SC
Post Reply
Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Petition from Ranma Tardis

Post by Callipygian »

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

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: Petition from Ranma Tardis

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

This is very not the SC's responsibility. Additionally, even if 'explaining the interpretations of laws' is not, strictly speaking, a role of the Scientific Council, I feel compelled to note that no structure in the CDS is consecrated ground of any sort. Or, in fact, ground of any sort. The elimination of a build that is intended to represent a mosque does not 'oppress your religion' any more than the existence of Gorean roleplayers in Second Life go against the provisions against enslavement.

While the ultimate answer is in the Executive's hands... if this was the SC's responsibility I do not think we would be terribly sympathetic to Ranma's argument. The church in Neufreistadt isn't sacrosanct, either - it's multipurpose, multifunctional, and largely there because a Bavarian mountain town of the sort the sim resembles would have a church like that around.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
User avatar
Lilith Ivory
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition from Ranma Tardis

Post by Lilith Ivory »

In my opinion the constitution makes it quite clear that it is the responsibility of the RA to overview the actions of the Chancellor.
Also I agree with Aliasi and only want to add that in this special case the Executive did not even have time to enforce the covenant. After the parcel owner learned about complains from a neighbor she talked to the builder of the mosque and both decided to remove the mosque and to build something else instead.

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
Terry Pratchett
Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Petition from Ranma Tardis

Post by Callipygian »

In an e-mail Arria has indicated:

I agree with the fact that it is a RA duty to review the decisions of the Executive branch.

Having heard from 4 of the 5 members of the SC, it is clear the Scientific Council recognizes oversight of the actions of the Chancellor to be the responsibility of the RA.

Thank you all for your responses.

Callipygian

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
Post Reply

Return to “SC Discussion”