Hi Gwyn,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. It is always a pleasure to read you. Unfortunately this entire sad episode puts on show yet again the precarious state of our structure of governance. Let me briefly address a few of the issues you raise, so as to assist you and/or the SC in its decision:
[quote:77y4botx]Forgive me about my ignorance or if I'm reading the legal text wrongly. From your wording, it sounds to me that you're basically requesting an injunction against the (New) Guild not to discuss matters related to Rose while she's on holiday. The argument seems to be that Rose's right to defend herself against accusations should prevail, since that's even part of the UDHR.[/quote:77y4botx]
I am requesting that the two items proposed by Jon to be put on the Guild agenda be postponed for two weeks until Rose's return, as (1) Rose has been the key legal person involved in the resolution of the IP issue and (2) this degenerated into a terrible war of words which affected her both professionally and personally and (3) therefore should be delayed until she is able to participate in person both regarding the substantive nature of the IP issues at hand and the personal accusations leveled against her. Any such discussions and decisions conducted and made in her absence would harfly be either fair or respectful of her rights.
[quote:77y4botx]I have two issues about this (and it definitely none have nothing to do with Rose!). First, the Guild is not "government" — it's a citizen's organisation, and there is both the right of association and the right of free speech that the SC cannot ignore. [/quote:77y4botx]
Well, it is my contention that the Guild is a quasi-governmental organisation, brought into being by an RA Act and based on an RA approved founding Charter, having as main purpose public activities on behalf of CDS as a whole, to be carried out the supervision of the RA. There is a clear argument that the Guild is not just "any group of citizens", but rather part and parcel of our structure of governance and, therefore, must uphold a certain standard of publicity, openness, accountabilty, respect for the rule of law and ethical behavior asked of any branch or instution of governance. Therefore, the freedom of speech of the members of such an organisation action [b:77y4botx]as members of that organisation[/b:77y4botx] must be balanced in some way against other values any functional and fair system of governance must adhere to. If the same inividuals wished to meet privately and discuss the same issues privately -and not under the auspices of the Guild, without making any decisions qua Guild members, there would of course be no argument in favour of the SC's intervention.
[quote:77y4botx]The second point is a certain assumption that the SC has the "exclusivity" of arbitration and moderation, and that the Guild would be, in essence, setting themselves up as their own arbitration/moderation facility, and interfering with the SC's constitutional duties, and thus any agenda including arbitration/moderation should, in effect, be prevented.[/quote:77y4botx]
Ah, this is one of the consequences of not having a functional and independent Judiciary - the SC is, in effect, our Judiciary and must struggle with these difficult and complex issues.
There is, of course, no argument against the Guild setting itself up as an arbitration/moderation facility. However, this entails at the very least the consent and presence of all parties involved in a dispute - and since Rose is away, this condition clearly cannot be met. My Petition involves, in part, exactly the possibility of the Guild seeting itself up as an "an arbitration/moderation facility", meeting, discussing, and making decisions whilst fully knowing one of the parties concerned cannot be present. Since my argument is that the Guild, by reason of its origins, nature and functions is a public, quasi-governmental organisation and part of our structure of governance, failure on its part to adhere to such basic principles of fairness and justice as summed up in the well established natural justice principle "audi alteram partes" (listen to both sides) would more than wannrant the intervention of such judiciary body as available - in this case the SC- to prevent its actual or likely breach.
in brief, while I fully agree with your argument in principle, given the specific circumstances of the case (quasi-govermental nature of the Guild, failure on its part to meet basic standards of natural justice should such a meeting be allowed to proceeed, lacked on any independent, fair and professional Judiciary in the CDS), it is my contention that the SC has the constitutionally-mandated duty to intervene and ensure that such violations of a citizen's rights do not actually take place.
[quote:77y4botx]
Only if they couldn't find a way out of a problem, or if the members would refuse their internal decisions, they would be allowed to appeal on that decision to the SC — but the SC has no "power" to refuse them the right to self-moderate and self-arbitrate... Rather, I even view the SC as having the role to encourage other forms of arbitration and moderation. In essence, the SC should work as a "last court of appeal" in most times and allow citizens to deal with all issues among themselves most (or all!) of the time.[/quote:77y4botx]
Again, I fully agree in principle. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in practice in these specific circumstances, as discussed above. What IS happening is that the Guild Secretary, finding himself in flagrant conflict of interest, "suggests" to the Chair of the Guild meeting, in full knowledge that Rose will be unavoidably absent, to set the Guild up as -at worst- a Board of Inquisition by discussing, weighning and deciding upon issues deeply affecting a CDS citizen without afording her the chance to participate and make her point of view heard. Whilst the SC could indeed not intervene even in such a case if the Guild were indeed a truly private group of citizens meeting privately, its public, quasi-governmental nature not only allows, but indeed mandates the SC's intervention - not to substitute itself for the Guild's mediation/arbitration functions, but to ensure that, should such fucntions be carried out, they will be in a fair, balanced and equitable manner, in accordance with basic principles of natural justice and the rule of law. Surely, that is part of the SC's bundle of attribtions both qua SC and qua only exsiting judiciary body of the CDS at present.
[quote:77y4botx]Even if that "role" of the SC might be disputed — ie. claiming that you can read the Constitution as granting the SC an "exclusivity" in moderation/arbitration — then we have to analyse what the Guild's agenda states. There is no item on it discussing an eventual "arbitration". They're just discussing internal procedures. One might discuss if the results of implementing those procedures are, or not, a clear violation of certain rules, laws, or even the Constitution, but that's a priori thinking Smile[/quote:77y4botx]
Ah yes - just internal procedures! Let's see: after years of effectively leeavingthe IP issue in abeyance, a lawyer is commissioned at the behest of CDSs public officials and Guild leaders to draft a text addressing these matters. The laywer in question proceeds to do so entirely "pro bono" based strictly on the mandate and guidelines provided to her by said Guild, and including in the process numerous meetings, consultations, discussions with the parties concerned - only to see her professional and personal competence and integrity attacked in a public forum by the top public official of the Guild -who incidentally, is personally involved in a political campaign for office in the RA. This self-same officer "resigns" his Guild positions but also "retains" it temporarily, then "suggests" to the Chair of the next Guild meeting an agenda which would clearly address, disscuss and make decisions both the susbstantive nature of thr work entrusted to the lawyer and the related accusations and charges publicly brought against her. Just internal procedure of a private body of citizens -or public exclusion of one of its very own agents during her absence by a quasi-governnmental, public body? I do realise this is a difficut issue the SC is ill-equipped to address - which is why this matter wouldd have been dealt with by a professional, competent and idependent Judiciary had it not been brought down by, among others, the self-same Guild official who was, at the time, an RA Member... Ahh, the webs we weave..... 
[quote:77y4botx]On the other hand, I could obviously suggest that you sent the very same document as a petition to the Guild to postpone their own meeting, on the grounds that discussing anything during the campaigning and voting session (which is actually almost over, anyway), when there are Guild members that are also candidates for the RA, is not very ethical (even if not "forbidden"). But that would be the Guild's prerogative of accepting (or not) that petition; and naturally, your own choice to send the petition to the Guild or not Smile[/quote:77y4botx]
I did indeed send a copy of this petition to the (resigned but still acting) Guild Secretaryr. However, it remains my contention that, based on the arguments and principles discussed above, the SC, in its double rolse as both SC and as only existing Judiciary body of the CDS, set up a mandatory framework of action within which the Guild may proceed in a fair, evenhanded and equitable manner, in accordance with well-established principles of natural law and mindful of all our citizens' rights under the constitution.
I hope this helps somewhat in clarifying the nature and purpose of my Petition.
Thank you again for your comments on this matter.
