The Economist: Mix it and mash it…

…twist it and turn it!

You may think I’ve gone crazy and decided to have a sing-along title just because I’m in a good mood. As a matter of fact, I am. I had a really good night yesterday, even though I’ve hardly slept at all. So while I was coming back home on a bus, I remembered about the trial that is soon going to open against the Republic Atlantis, and I could hardly contain my happiness. What could possibly improve my mood further still? Well, thank you dear Atlantis, your recent communique was so funny I’m actually in the best mood I’ve been in days! Credit given where credit is due – you are pretty good at regularly producing some hilarious pieces of literature.

Before I commence, as a side note, I would like to point out that “Trail” means a path in wilderness, usually used by hikers or hunters. A “Trial”, on the other hand, is the determination of a person’s guilt or innocence by due course of law. Just a little heads-up.

You may be thinking: why so amused? Well, it’s so full of nonsense, it was a choice between crying and laughing. So let’s see what our dear Atlantideans have in store for us. Firstly, thank you for confirming the people we are apparently placing on a mountain path, but the trial hasn’t begun yet, so hold your horses.

The following paragraphs are the best, in my opinion, and lead directly to the title of this article. Sorry to disappoint you my dear colleagues, but you won’t be tried under British law, unless you really want a lawsuit. Your infraction was against St.Charlian property and hence St.Charlian law will be used. Your own local law is irrelevant. Furthermore, the convention of human rights is not a law code, you can’t be tried according to it. We are currently in the process of translating our Penal Code, but we will make sure that all relevant parts are translated in time for the trial. Bluntly asking for it with peculiar requests is surely not going to net you anything, try again.

Now for the real hitter. Having read the two articles from the Declaration of Human Rights, I was astounded to find out that St.Charlie was mentioned in the text! Of course, when I read the actual articles in question, I actually thought I had read some fake because there was no resemblance what so ever with the text provided. I’m not sure whether this was relative to the charges against Atlantis or St.Charlie but I’m assuming it’s talking about St.Charlie. Even if it wasn’t, it still doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Apparently, we must have a 6-12 person Jury which cannot have a St.Charlian, an ally or an ally of an ally and that applies to the judge too.  If you’re referring to Article 11, you haven’t understood a single thing that was written. If you are basing your claims on Article 10, which calls for an “independent and impartial” tribunal, that doesn’t mean you cannot be tried by St.Charlie, only that you must have a fair trial as anyone else would have and strictly according to the law. Furthermore, we don’t operate with common law, which means we don’t have a jury but a judge and magistrates. The reference to Article 11 left me puzzled as there is nothing in the text that has anything to do with it.

The next set of claims are also quite funny: apparently we have to try the individuals separately, in 3 to 6 months because no charges have been made (well no way, there’s no trial yet!) and that we cannot contact a Atlantis citizen till then. Let me get one thing clear. You can’t invent your own law. You can’t invent your own rules and base them on the Declaration of Human Rights. The law as set out in these international documents is not something to be adjusted to fit your needs. You can’t mix it and mash it, or twist it and turn it, until it suits you.

If dear Atlantis seriously thinks they are going to tell us how to proceed, citing texts they apparently can’t read, I must say the very little esteem I had for you has fallen to a value approaching the absolute zero. St.Charlie has probably one of the most serious and comprehensive law codes in the community, so before you have any authority whatsoever to speak, consider trying to write one. We are obviously not going to follow rules you have set out, as this is our judicial system, and we’d like to keep it free of idiocy. As for the no-contact policy, there is a diplomatic embargo present on our part, I would like to remind you.

Regarding the charges brought against St.Charlie, I feel a little bit of lecturing is due. Copyright means “a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work”. We hold the copyright for the SCAF ranks, as specified by both St.Charlian law and the copyright template on the images. You unfortunately do not have copyright over your ranks for two simple reasons: firstly, when no copyright is provided, it is assumed for the graphics to be released in public domain. Secondly, as the ranks were plagiarised from the ones on which we hold copyright, we have the right to distribute them as we please.

To wrap this whole thing up: at the moment there are ongoing talks as to whether or not the trial should go on or not. Maybe the people who say that even considering Atlantis and posting about them is stupid are right. Maybe giving Atlantis any importance is futile. From now on, I will completely respect the diplomatic embargo on Atlantis: any further comments will be met with silence, however hilarious are. Peace, Love and Sand from St.Charlie.

One Response to “The Economist: Mix it and mash it…”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: