[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Fhearghuis Ghillechriost mac mheic Iain (email@example.com) wrote:
> Since I do not know the address of the Grand Council member to whom I
> should direct my comments, I will submit it to the list and he who
> knows how may forward it to the appropriate gentle.
Although I am neither a Grand Council member nor one who knows any,
I hope you will not mind if I use this same forum to add my own
comments on this subject.
> I have heard recently of the Proposed changes to the banishment rule
> and have this opinion on the matter.
I gather that the proposed changes are to save the BOD the bother of
reviewing banishments or listening to appeals, and/or that banishments
extend beyond the reign of the banisher. Do I understand true?
> I urge not to implement the proposed change. I myself am against
> banishment at all, but I do recognize the fact that some mechanism
> needs to be in place should the need arise. However, given that
> banishment is a necessary evil, great measures should be taken in
> order to prevent this very side from appearing (that is its abuse).
I heartily concur.
> IMHO the only way to do this is to either take banishment out the hands
> of the Royalty entirely or at least ensure that there is some recourse
> for the banished individual be it a member or no. [...]
> It is wholly unnecessary that a banished individual be permanently so.
> If the person is indeed someone who has caused serious problems in the
> past, perhaps he/she has mended his ways and would now be a valued
> member of the society. If not the next crown can rebanish him, and this
> can continue until the person either shapes up or tires of the SCA and
> leaves us alone to play our game in peace. This may seem like it is
> wasting the Crown's time by requiring him/her to always question the
> previous royals edicts. However, even convicts are allowed to amend
> their ways and obtain parole. Should exiles who have committed less
> vile deeds be denied that chance?
It seems that you're suggesting that the "recourse for the banished
individual" be waiting for a more understanding king to come along.
This may be sufficient for reformed exiles, but what of those who
were unjustly banished? However, I believe it has the virtue of
being similar to the recourse available in the Period. I for one
don't think that reviewing the Crown's predecessor's edicts is a waste
of the Crown's time at all, but rather a power that the Crown should
enjoy. Further, I think that these reviews, and the original edict,
should be carried out in court with the appropriate ceremony.
> Also, having the BOD review all banishments may seem to waste the
> BOD's time. Conversely, I argue that banishments (ideally) should
> not occur with such frequency that the BOD is bothered by reviewing
> banishments. And if that should occur because of a Crown fond of
> banishment that Crown can be removed for insufficient reason to issue
> a banishment.
Here I must disagree. I favor saving the BOD as much time as possible.
I propose that a diffent body review banishments: the Barons and Shire-
Reeves who administer the regions affected. Thus a subject who was
unjustly banished on a king's whim could still attend those events that
are not on the Royal Progress and are held in regions where the injustice
is known. Contrariwise, a person manifestly in need of indefinite
banishment will be banished in resounding and repeated ceremonies echoing
throughout the land.
> As to my hint of moving banishment out of the Royals hands entirely,
> I mean giving it to the BOD.
Let me stress that I disagree with this particular suggestion.
However, on the whole, I agree with you.
-- Alfredo el Bufon
- No Subject
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John J. Hale)