this bill is now officially open for debate.

Poiters. MP for SM.

I congratulation the ACP on yet another bill which attempts to remove our citizens rights to fair trials. Needless to say I wholeheartedly oppose this bill.

So in brief. This order allows the Emperor to exile whomever he so wishes. He can exercise a warrant doing so without a court order or with one? Who decides the length of the exile? Where are they to be exiled to? The exile can appeal via the courts?

Mssr. Speaker,

I am inclined to agree with the Honourable Member for OTED in his harsh words against the Conservative Minority. This bill, like others proposed by the Right Honourable Member for Rio Grande, does take away a citizen's fundamental right to trial. I see no reason why the power of exile, which is already granted to the High Court through the Imperial Criminal Code, should be transferred into the hands of the executive. I wish to ask him to explain why he feels it necessary that this happens, as well as to explain why he believes the Emperor should be capable of exiling a person for merely being rude to someone?

I yield the floor,

Mssr. Speaker, as an aside, I wonder what grounds Napoleon would have been exiled on if he were an Alexandrian? Perhaps saying nasty things about his wartime opponents.

prior to accepting any motions i'd like to have the person that proposed the bill to state his sentiment with regards to the bill. i personally am in support of the bill given its nature. the emperor is the defendant of the constitution and the executive power is vested in him. the power to revoke the bill is in the emperor's council chamber [the cabinet which should include the chief justice]. the bill, in my belief is essentially balanced. I'm personally offering my support for the bill because i vest my trust in the emperor and in his quest to carry out his duty as defender of the constitution and of alexandria. i turst his judgement more than anyone elses. i trust that he will do the necessary to protect alexandria no matter what as founder of the nation and its defender.

Poiters. MP for SM.

Mssr. Speaker,

I agree with your sentiments and hope the Right Honourable Member for Rio Grande comes before the House to explain his reasoning. The Lord Chief Justice does not sit in Cabinet as far as I'm aware. I was Lord Chief Justice for over a year, Mssr Speaker and was never once invited or called to the Cabinet. In fact, I was never once called upon for any legal advice to HIM Government so I think that the Lord Chief Justice is only a potent position through the High Court and High Court only.

I yield the floor,

Mr. Speaker,

What the opposition is blatantly failing to see is the term “Emperor in Council”. Legally defined, this term implied the entire Imperial Cabinet advising the Emperor. That means the Prime Minister, the Minister of Interior, Defense, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Justice and the Director of Intelligence. It’s a group of eight people in total (counting His Imperial Majesty) that would decide on this matter. EIGHT PEOPLE.

It also makes provisions for the Emperor-in-Council to install regulations and procedures to perform the Exile process. That could include specific processes for oversight and court appeals. I, for one, happen to trust His Majesty and those officials I voted for to do their job. If you do not, then maybe you should actually try voting for Conservatives, who have had a history and full experience of expanding democracy, protecting Alexandria and strengthening the country.

I yield.

Fellow members of Parliament,

I too find this bill absolutely unacceptable!

This bill violates the most essential principles of any democracy: I'm talking about separation of powers.

This bill allows the executive to conduct its own trials and to effectively sanction persons in violation of whatever the executive believes wrong.

The powers conferred to the Emperor and the cabinet are so general in scope that it violates the very idea of "nullum crimen sine lege". No crime without a law!

Today the government presents a bill which allows to sanction any act or omission which the executive power deems contrary to the good of the Empire, whatever that may be and to impose the harshest sanction thinkable.

The opposition will surely reply that the bill specifies a list of acts or omissions which can be sanctioned by exile. For one, this list is not limitative. Secondly, this list shows to what extent the executive power hopes to erect itself into a court of law, a move which is totally out of place.

Many of the acts mentioned in article 2, b of the bill, if not all, are crimes punishable under the Imperial Criminal Code: I'm talking about
- flaming (art. 14);
- spamming (art. 15);
- defamation (art. 21);
- using false identity (art. 20).

What the government proposes would allow them to set aside any court procedure in these matters and to impose sanctions harsher than determined in the Imperial Criminal Code! Let's be clear: for the above mentioned crimes the Criminal Code often only provides for a detention of a few weeks or months.

The fact that 8 people are to make the decision and that the exile order can be appealed before the courts cannot justify any of this.

Whether the emperor, as head of the executive, acts alone or is assisted by the other members of the executive power, does not change the fact that the very idea of separation of powers is violated.

A post factum judicial control does not change the fact that this bill offers no guarantee to a citizen or foreigner that the right to a fair and unpartial trial is guaranteed when his conduct is to be evaluated. This bill is clearly in contravention of the rights and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.

One might even say that this bill is a crime. I cite article 11 of the Imperial Criminal Code:

" Attempting to Pervert Justice

Any person who attempts, in any way not specially defined in this Code, to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Empire of the Alexandrians, shall be guilty of a crime, called attempting to pervert justice, and liable to the punishment of detention in the Conciergerie for 3 months."

Mssr. Speaker,

The Honourable Member for Baudrix is most certainly right in his eloquent rebuttal. My colleague is right in his description of this act and like any freedom loving Alexandrian, he is right to oppose such a bill. Yet, I would like to ask who is the person behind such an act? Who really controls the Conservative Party in Alexandria, Mssr. Speaker? The Right Honourable Member for Rio Grande? The Prime Minister? Or even yourself? There are many different signals coming out of the Conservative Party, Mssr Speaker, and the hard authoritarian line of the Rt. Hon. Member for Rio Grande seems at odds with the Prime Minister's more leisurely approach to Government and civil liberties. Does the Right Honourable Prime Minister support this bill, Mssr Speaker?

I would like to state that I am perfectly aware of what the Emperor-in-Council means in legal terms, Mssr. Speaker, having not only studied English law (which has the King-in-Council) and history but also from my experience of sitting as Lord Chief Justice. Despite the Rt. Hon Member for Rio Grande's repeated attempts to portray this majority as incompetent and ill educated, his skulduggery and cloak and dagger tactics fail to hide the simple and blatant fact of this bill; the removal of judicial power into the hands of the executive. Regardless of whoever sits in the Imperial, regardless of who makes up the Emperor-in-Council in legal terms, the judicial power of this Empire resides in the Lord Chief Justice sitting in the High Court alone. Any transfer of this power is indeed a breach of the separation of powers theory, which we do not completely have and are moving further away from if truth is to be told. It is also, Mssr. Speaker, a breach of the constitution. Again, I oppose this bill.

I motion to vote,

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker,
Again I urge the Members of Parliament to read these bills. Would that be too much to ask from them?

The powers of the courts are affirmed in this bill, and they’re given clear powers that are stated nowhere else. There is no “breach of power”. There is no transfer of power. There is no destruction of the court’s powers… which in effect, do not exist. Why is the opposition making up judicial powers out of the blue? Good sir, you might have been LCJ before, but that does not make you the eminent power and omnisapient being in Alexandrian law. You barely understood it when you were in the courts.

Sir, the Conservative Party is a “big tent party”. There are moderates, rightists and liberals in our party. Are you now going to use your stereotypes and your hackery to tell us how we should behave as Conservatives? I propose my own bills, just like Matthieu and the Prime Minister does. Just like you do. We allow our members to think for themselves. Maybe you guys in the AAP should try it once in a while.

I refuse to stand by and allow you to call me authoritarian. Let me quote from my past bills that I have written that have served to expand Alexandria’s democracy – the Constitutional Housekeeping Bill (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2306), Provincial Reform Act (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2231), Ministry of Justice Act (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2235), the Executive Ministries Act (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2234), Code of Civil Procedure (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2233), General Civil Code (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1596), Provincial Powers Act (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1565), MediAlex Act of 2006 (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2229), Social Security Act of 2006 (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2230), Worker’s Rights Act (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2630), Executive Succession Amendment Act (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2307), Elections Act (http://alexandriaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2310)... The list goes on. I have done more than your stint as LCJ in my time as a legislator and a Prime Minister to work for democracy and liberty for our citizens, Carmicheal. I will not accept your baseless slander.

I am not seeking to establish a one-party state or a dictatorship. I want to protect Alexandria and give His Majesty’s Government the leverage needed to defend the Empire. This is not Great Britain, this is not the United States – this is a micronation. Things are different. We are smaller and we can take these measures to preserve the stability and the liberty of our own citizens here.

The Prime Minister is his own man. He is experienced and I support him. He can support this bill if he wants to, or vote against it if he wants to. He is a man of his own mind. Now, do not sit there and timply that we have to force intellectual uniformity... but then again, I am not surprised coming from the AAP - a party that has worked to dissolve people's political choices. Now that's an attack on liberty.

I yield.

Mssr. Speaker,

Before you call the House to order after the Right Honourable Member for Rio Grande's outburst I would like to address the points he made as well as respond in kind.

Firstly, Mssr. Speaker, the majority has read the bill and knows full well that the powers of the High Court will be transferred away in this bill. The Imperial High Court is considered by convention and by common law to be the Court of First Instance and as such trials should always occur there, never mind that little piece of legislation known as the Constitution which invests the judicial power of the Empire into the High Court. By giving the High Court powers only to review and accept appeals, you are removing its position as the Court of First Instance as well as instituting the sort of system that is more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than any democracy with citizens enjoying full human rights. As for his witty aside regarding my time as LCJ, the right honourable gentleman needs to understand that being bitter is not an appealing quality.

Mssr. Speaker, the Right Honourable Gentleman should be aware that the AAP allows all its members to speak freely. The Rt. Hon. Gentleman can quote a list of bills as long as his arm, but that still does not deny the authoritarian nature of his latest bills. I would also caution the Minority Leader against claiming the idea of a Ministry of Justice as his own. It is ineffective, a complete disaster and should be abolished. Much like his latest bills, it is a failure. The Minority Leader should understand that resting on one's laurels and that looking to the past is no subsititute for sound legislative measures based upon sound principles. His achievements may be many, but the Rt. Hon Gentleman has lost his touch recently.

Finally Mssr Speaker, the Empire is a beacon democracy and sound government to the micronational world, not of tyranny and unchecked executive powers. That is what the AAP is trying to preserve in its opposition to these bills and the Minority Leader of the Conservatives should accept and acknowledge this. The Rt. Hon. Gentleman may accuse my party of restricting people's political freedoms, but it is not this party who will be supporting measures to clamp down on people's rights to create Political Parties. I most certainly hope that it is not his party that does so, or everything he has ever declared, and most of his accusations against me and my party would be a tad hypocrtical.

I yield the floor Mssr. Speaker!

Mssr. Speaker,

First off, if my statements are outbursts, then I wonder what the statements given by the so-called “New Majority” are. For example, take into account any and all statements by Mssr. Torres. And take most of what Mssr. Carmicheal just stated. Those are outbursts. I am defending my record and my bill in this body, if those are considered outbursts by the opposition then I cringe about what might not be considered outbursts…

By showing my record, I meant to fight your accusations that I seek to create tyranny here in Alexandria. I have worked hard to expand democracy and preserve the people’s liberties. For example, I fought against your own party not too long ago to ensure that people would be able to decide if they wished to join a political party or not. I fought to protect their liberty to make political decisions such as those. I think we can all agree that political parties, despite their shortcomings, are important for persons to get involved in politics. It’s not a matter of “resting on my laurels and looking to the past” as you have said. I am defending my record as a legislator who has sought to build Alexandria up and expand democracy and freedom.

I will rightfully claim the idea of the Ministry of Justice as my own. I tried to create a system in Alexandria for justice. I wrote the Criminal Code of Procedure as well as the Civil Code of Procedure as well – which is still a lot more than what you can say, sir. The Ministry of Justice is not a failure. Like everything, we try something and if it doesn’t work, we reform it. I haven’t seen you, despite all your grandstanding and constant destructive criticism, propose ANY bill to reform the system. Pray, show me – where is this bill of yours that offer the reforms you so promote, hmph? If I have an idea, I write the bill and I have the courage to propose it to Parliament, sir. If anyone’s resting on their laurels… it is you. If you have reform ideas, then propose them! You won’t expect the unnecessary and unwarranted hostility that you have been presenting to anything that’s authored by myself. I genuinely seek to build up our nation and our Empire, which is something I have been doing for a few years now.

The AAP used to be the “Alexandrian Anti-Party”. It’s main tenet was to eliminate political parties completely from Alexandria. His Highness, the Prince of Corcovado, an outspoken activist that sought to eliminate political parties after his traumatic experiences in San Martin, even joined it. The Conservative Party and the now defunct PDP fought against it, and we won. In an effort to bail out from their past and win an election, they abandoned that tenet and changed their name to their current name. Since then the AAP wanders around without any specific definition, just platitudes after platitudes, changing positions like the sails on a sailboat. Everyone always knows where the Conservative Party stands because we have always defined ourselves clearly. The AAP sadly hasn’t, which has its benefits (party can flipflop, shape-shift, etc , etc) and drawbacks.

As for the measures to clamp down on the plethora of political parties, His Imperial Highness the Dauphin came up with a very, very good idea in his Political Parties Act bill, which I intend to support.

Since the majority seems to block this bill endlessly without any substantial amendment or suggestion, I withdraw this bill, and motion that the Political Parties Act of 2008 be brought to the floor to replace it.

I yield.

Mssr. Speaker,

I would like to address the new points the Right Honourable Gentleman has raised.

The Rt. Honourable Gentleman should be aware that I drafted the amended Imperial Criminal Code, which I believe was a work of his. Forgive the legal pun, but there is already a precedent of me improving on the work of Rt. Honourable Gentleman! Also, from what I'm aware, the Criminal Code of Procedure was created but never voted through and should remain in the Hopper, although it appears absent. Can the Right Honourable Member explain where his bill went? I must say it was certainly an impressive piece of legislation, but was overly complicated in my view and could have been much simpler, which I would have proposed had I had the chance to debate it. From what I am aware, I did draft a bill proposing the abolition of the Ministry of Justice and its replacement with an independent Office of the Crown Prosecutor appointed by the Emperor and in place for as long as the person holding the office sees fit. Now, if my memory has failed me in this respect, I apologise and will draft a bill of similiar substance to be debated by the chamber. However, could this have been administrative error of the same kind that has seen his Criminal Code of Procedure disappear?

Now to address another part of his speech, Mssr. Speaker,

I am well aware, Mssr. Speaker, of the history of the Alexandrian Amelioration Party. I am also well aware that it is the natural successor to the People's Democratic Party. The AAP now has a clear set of beliefs which we have laid out in our party headquarters. I invite the Right Honourable Member to view them, although he will doubtlessly disagree with them. It may be true that everyone knows where the Conservative Party stand. I happen to believe that everyone knows where the AAP stands also. I also happen to believe that we are the ones standing in the right and the Conservative's are outdated, know they are and know that they are viewed to be standing in the wrong by the populace. Why, if the Conservative Party is so strong, are the liberal parties of Alexandria stronger than ever and outnumber the Conservative Party's members? I wish the Right Honourable Member success in his election campaign for I believe he'll need it!

Mssr. Speaker, I wish to remind you that there was already a motion to vote presented to the House before this motion to replace. I also wish to remind him that it is nigh time that this new Majority is allowed to vote on bills it has proposed rather than have to sit in Parliament and vote down bills which the Conservatives know we can never assent to as they are flawed in their nature.

I yield the floor,

Mssr. Speaker,

This is concerning… I can’t find the proposed Criminal Code of Procedure anywhere, nor the bill that you stated you proposed. I do remember it failed.

Your motion was NEVER seconded. Instead of “reminding” me of things… maybe I should remind you of the rules? Hmm?

I yield.

ORDER. there shall be ORDER.
there are two different motions on the floor. one to table the bill at hand and the other to vote on the current presented bill.
i hereby second the motion of my fellow member of parliament, the rt hon. parlamentarian from Rio grande. table the bill for later.

Poiters. MP for SM.

fellow member of parliament-
you are horrendously wrong. the AAP is not the successor to the PDP i can tell you that because i've been here for a good while now and am the most senior member of parliament. [see? you don't know your history there is no natural successor to the PDP. if anything it would be the ACP but we arent.] the last member from the PDP was indeed the current prime minister wh just got elected another term. leaves me wondering, if we're so unpopular why did he resoundedly win the elections completely defeating your candidate and all others? because we stand for the people of Alexandria and defending the constitution. we, have a proven record of that. [maybe thats why we fight this hard to bring the people what they need.]

the conservatives are the oldest party here and also the one to protect the interests of the people of alexandria here and abroad. i happen to believe that the AAP unlike the ACP does not have a clear set of ideas because once they are unpopular with the people, the AAP shifts elsewhere like my fellow member of parliament citoyen Frias pointed out. you should note that we will of course oppose anything that wouldn't be best for alexandria and the AAP sits on those very ideas.The ACP has stood by its ideals and proposals because they are desperately needed in alexandria to protect them against vicious spies and people that seek to turn alexandria into a republic when its not meant to be. we have a figure-head leader you can sneak a peak when he roams the forums - HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY. thats what alexandria is, an Imperial Democracy.


Poiters. MP for SM.

So if the history lesson is over. Should we worry about the bills? As Interior Minister, I agree with the principle of exile. I feel that if the content of this bill could be incorporated into a/the criminal code it would be preferable.

Mssr. Speaker,

The Imperial Criminal Code already has measures for exile to be imposed upon people by the Courts. This bill is therefore unnecessary in my view, as well as being abhorrent to my party's and my own views on the executive power.

Also, Mssr. Speaker, the Right Honourable Member for Rio Grande is wrong in his statement that my bill was voted down. It never reached the floor of this house, Mssr. Speaker. May I request an explanation into why at least two bills have gone missing from the Hopper?

I yield the floor,

the exile bill has been tabled fellow members of parliament. we will now introduce a new bill. the Political Parties Act of 2008 proposed by his highness, pricne enrique.

to answer your question honorable member of parliament, i have not the slightest clue. if its not in the hopper then its not going to get introduced. may i suggest resubmitting it?

Poiters. MP for SM.

Good. Lets keep this place busy then.