Lèse-majesté and related laws in Themiclesia: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "In Themiclesia, '''lèse-majesté''' (不敬, ''pje-krjangs'') is criminalized in Article 224 of the Penal Code. It is unlawful in Themiclesia to display irreverence or to fa...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In Themiclesia, '''lèse-majesté''' (不敬, ''pje- | In Themiclesia, '''lèse-majesté''' (不敬, ''pje-krjangh'') is criminalized in Article 224 of the Penal Code. It is formally unlawful in Themiclesia to be irreverent to the [[Monarchy of Themiclesia|Sovereign]], but the Penal Code does not explicitly define what constitutes punishable irreverence. Certain acts are explicitly criminalized in other laws. | ||
In Casaterran nomenclature, many instances of lèse-majesté are symbolic or cultural infractions, while others instances can be interpreted as crimes against political and social order, especially the supremacy of the Sovereign. More direct offences fell under the category of treason. Prior to 1853, lèse-majesté could be a capital crime. The law permitted the government much latitude in deciding the final punishment, as all convictions were subject to the Emperor's review before promulgation. | |||
To reduce its potency as a political weapon, which was frequently threatened in the early 19th century though never brought, the Attorney-General was legally prohibited from levying this charge without permission from both the throne and the Government. In 1907, there was broad Parliamentary support to clarify that "irreverent speech" did not constitute a crime; though this never passed into law, it was in practice accepted. Governments have not prosecuted anyone under lèse-majesté since 1924. | |||
==Laws== | ==Laws== | ||
Throughout the evolution of Themiclesia's penal law, lèse-majesté has always been treated as a major crime, whose punishment is declared in the opening sections. Typically, provisions for treason and sedition immediately precede it, leading scholars to believe that lèse-majesté was conceived as a political crime that did not, directly, threaten the political order with the Emperor at its top. The Penal Code of | Throughout the evolution of Themiclesia's penal law, lèse-majesté has always been treated as a major crime, whose punishment is declared in the opening sections. Typically, provisions for treason and sedition immediately precede it, leading scholars to believe that lèse-majesté was conceived as a political crime that did not, directly, threaten the political order with the Emperor at its top. The Penal Code of Tsjinh (256 – 421) provides: | ||
{{quote|不敬，斬。疑、誤，請。犯人家屬孥，不聽贖。失，勿問。 | {{quote|不敬，斬。疑、誤，請。犯人家屬孥，不聽贖。失，勿問。 | ||
<br>Lèse-majesté shall be punished by decapitation. If committed by mistake or under doubt, it is to be referred to the government. The family of the convict shall be enslaved to the state, and it shall not be permitted to ransom them. If committed unintentionally, it is not punishable.|Penal Code of Tsjins, c. 270}} | <br>Lèse-majesté shall be punished by decapitation. If committed by mistake or under doubt, it is to be referred to the government. The family of the convict shall be enslaved to the state, and it shall not be permitted to ransom them. If committed unintentionally, it is not punishable.|Penal Code of Tsjins, c. 270}} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 12: | ||
===Scope=== | ===Scope=== | ||
The lack of any formal definition of lèse-majesté has been much-studied in legal history. Some scholars, such as B. Torison, believes that{{quote|what constitutes lèse-majesté is meant to change with social expectations and customs. The vagueness is intentionally present to allow jurisprudence to punish those whom society regard as irreverent and to acquit those whose causes were worthy of sympathy in its eyes. In a way, the law protects the image and stature of the Sovereign in the minds of the public | The lack of any formal definition of lèse-majesté has been much-studied in legal history. Some scholars, such as B. Torison, believes that{{quote|what constitutes lèse-majesté is meant to change with social expectations and customs. The vagueness is intentionally present to allow jurisprudence to punish those whom society regard as irreverent and to acquit those whose causes were worthy of sympathy in its eyes. In a way, the law protects the image and stature of the Sovereign in the minds of the public according to public, fluid standards, rather than a a monarchy and its static attributes.}}Yet others, such as R. Gerald-MacIntyre, think that{{quote|while the flexibility may have served the functions of Torison's description, its original purpose can only be the maximization of the state's power in punishing any offender upon any evidence. There are, of course, natural and political limits to its operation, but it is very wide by intention.}} | ||
While there seem to be few limits as to its operation to protect the Emperor, there are also instances where it was invoked to punish critics of the | While there seem to be few limits as to its operation to protect the Emperor, there are also instances where it was invoked to punish critics of the court (朝廷, ''ntrjaw-lêng'') in general. This is an extention of the Emperor's position as the head of the court. This use of the law is limited mostly to commoners who have written or spoken inflamatory things criticial of no political leader in particular; however, aristocrats not in government have done the same thing with impunity, and at times at praise, described as "conscience and duty". The law also protected those whose status is deemed equivalent to the emperor, namely the empress and empress(es) dowager, in largely the same ways as towards the emperor. The heir apparent, the crown prince, is not protected by the same law, as he remains legally a subject. | ||
There is a "bewildering proliferation" of acts that have been regarded as lèse-majesté in the past, enumerated very partially here: | There is a "bewildering proliferation" of acts that have been regarded as lèse-majesté in the past, enumerated very partially here: | ||
| Line 34: | Line 38: | ||
*For visitors, to disobey ushers in rendering proper courtesy to the emperor | *For visitors, to disobey ushers in rendering proper courtesy to the emperor | ||
*Making lewd statements or inappropriate comparisons or analogies of the emperor to other persons or things, before the emperor | *Making lewd statements or inappropriate comparisons or analogies of the emperor to other persons or things, before the emperor | ||
===Democracy=== | |||
Lèse-majesté has been applied at least once to protect political institutions other than royalty and court. In the 1804 civic elections, Trjên Ko (展股), a discharged military officer, attacked an elector supporting the [[Lord of Gar-ljang]] and his dismantling of much of the [[Colonial Army (Themiclesia)|Colonial Army]], which led to the loss of Themiclesia's empire in Columbia. While the elector sustained only moderate injuries, Trjên was arrested and sentenced to death by decapitation, on a charge of lèse-majesté. While his representatives argued that his intentions were pure if misguided, the court ruled that intefering with the political process by violence was legally the same as attacking the emperor. The Home Secretary rejected application for clemency | |||
==Jurisdiction== | ==Jurisdiction== | ||
Revision as of 07:45, 3 June 2020
In Themiclesia, lèse-majesté (不敬, pje-krjangh) is criminalized in Article 224 of the Penal Code. It is formally unlawful in Themiclesia to be irreverent to the Sovereign, but the Penal Code does not explicitly define what constitutes punishable irreverence. Certain acts are explicitly criminalized in other laws.
In Casaterran nomenclature, many instances of lèse-majesté are symbolic or cultural infractions, while others instances can be interpreted as crimes against political and social order, especially the supremacy of the Sovereign. More direct offences fell under the category of treason. Prior to 1853, lèse-majesté could be a capital crime. The law permitted the government much latitude in deciding the final punishment, as all convictions were subject to the Emperor's review before promulgation.
To reduce its potency as a political weapon, which was frequently threatened in the early 19th century though never brought, the Attorney-General was legally prohibited from levying this charge without permission from both the throne and the Government. In 1907, there was broad Parliamentary support to clarify that "irreverent speech" did not constitute a crime; though this never passed into law, it was in practice accepted. Governments have not prosecuted anyone under lèse-majesté since 1924.
Laws
Throughout the evolution of Themiclesia's penal law, lèse-majesté has always been treated as a major crime, whose punishment is declared in the opening sections. Typically, provisions for treason and sedition immediately precede it, leading scholars to believe that lèse-majesté was conceived as a political crime that did not, directly, threaten the political order with the Emperor at its top. The Penal Code of Tsjinh (256 – 421) provides:
不敬，斬。疑、誤，請。犯人家屬孥，不聽贖。失，勿問。
Lèse-majesté shall be punished by decapitation. If committed by mistake or under doubt, it is to be referred to the government. The family of the convict shall be enslaved to the state, and it shall not be permitted to ransom them. If committed unintentionally, it is not punishable.— Penal Code of Tsjins, c. 270
These provisions have largely been maintained by subsequent dynasties. When capital punishment was abolished in 1853, lèse-majesté was ameliorated to a less severe offence that warranted between 3 and 22 years in prison.
Scope
The lack of any formal definition of lèse-majesté has been much-studied in legal history. Some scholars, such as B. Torison, believes that
what constitutes lèse-majesté is meant to change with social expectations and customs. The vagueness is intentionally present to allow jurisprudence to punish those whom society regard as irreverent and to acquit those whose causes were worthy of sympathy in its eyes. In a way, the law protects the image and stature of the Sovereign in the minds of the public according to public, fluid standards, rather than a a monarchy and its static attributes.
Yet others, such as R. Gerald-MacIntyre, think that
while the flexibility may have served the functions of Torison's description, its original purpose can only be the maximization of the state's power in punishing any offender upon any evidence. There are, of course, natural and political limits to its operation, but it is very wide by intention.
While there seem to be few limits as to its operation to protect the Emperor, there are also instances where it was invoked to punish critics of the court (朝廷, ntrjaw-lêng) in general. This is an extention of the Emperor's position as the head of the court. This use of the law is limited mostly to commoners who have written or spoken inflamatory things criticial of no political leader in particular; however, aristocrats not in government have done the same thing with impunity, and at times at praise, described as "conscience and duty". The law also protected those whose status is deemed equivalent to the emperor, namely the empress and empress(es) dowager, in largely the same ways as towards the emperor. The heir apparent, the crown prince, is not protected by the same law, as he remains legally a subject.
There is a "bewildering proliferation" of acts that have been regarded as lèse-majesté in the past, enumerated very partially here:
- Opnely urinating or becoming drunk in the Palace Hall (a legally-defined section of the palace that contains the emperor's audience chamber and personal quarters, as opposed to the offices of ministers and other officials)
- Disrupting the emperor's procession
- Not observing the taboo on the emperor's personal name in official writing
- Stealing the emperor's affects (only those already crafted and delivered to the Royal Storage count)
- Stealing offerings meant for the Heavens, Earth, and the emperor's ancestors
- Making portraits of the emperor
- Shouting, running, fighting, or bleeding in the Palace Hall
- Unsheathing an allowed weapon in the Palace Hall (regardless of intention)
- Bringing a disallowed weapon into the Palace Hall
- Soiling the emperor's attire, food, bed, any other items in close contact
- Entering into the emperor's presence unannounced
- Looking at the emperor from a higher elevation
- Not being in proper attire before the emperor
- Lying to the emperor
- To bring contraband substances into the emperor's presence
- Not removing shoes and socks before entering the Palace Hall
- Failing to shuffle when moving in the emperor's presence
- Facing south when ceremonies are in progress in the emperor's presence
- For the Royal Guards, to make sudden movements or failing to prostrate in the emperor's presence
- For visitors, to disobey ushers in rendering proper courtesy to the emperor
- Making lewd statements or inappropriate comparisons or analogies of the emperor to other persons or things, before the emperor
Democracy
Lèse-majesté has been applied at least once to protect political institutions other than royalty and court. In the 1804 civic elections, Trjên Ko (展股), a discharged military officer, attacked an elector supporting the Lord of Gar-ljang and his dismantling of much of the Colonial Army, which led to the loss of Themiclesia's empire in Columbia. While the elector sustained only moderate injuries, Trjên was arrested and sentenced to death by decapitation, on a charge of lèse-majesté. While his representatives argued that his intentions were pure if misguided, the court ruled that intefering with the political process by violence was legally the same as attacking the emperor. The Home Secretary rejected application for clemency
Jurisdiction
Lèse-majesté is treated as any criminal offence in Themiclesia currently, falling under the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal judicature.
Noted cases
Nationalists in 1928
The Themiclesian Nationalist Party took advantage of public hours of the Hian-lang Palace in Kien-k'ang to stage several political rallies in 1928, which became rowdy and disruptive between Mar. 3 and 9, as ralliers camped en masse within palace grounds. While their political message was the annexation of Dzhungestan (the Themiclesian Army controlled it at the time), they also promoted a range of other messages that the government found dangerous to express within the grounds of the palace. Jurists were also concerned that their actions, while ostensibly within the right to express views, were an infringement on the emperor's dignity. In April, several hundred retired judges and lawyers signed a public letter listing the actions of the Nationalists in the palace grounds they deemed offensive to the dignity of the crown; as a defensive measure, the Nationalists have always claimed to be loyalists, but the letter instead portrayed them as buffoons who claim to be loyal but are actively infringing on royal dignity. In response, the Nationalists drew up their own public letter, claiming that the "social elite are oppressing a legitimate political voice". The jurists' accusations are as follows:
- Not observing the taboo on four of the Emperor's ancestors' names in public writing
- Not observing the taboo on the Empress Dowager's name
- Not removing shoes in the Gate of Rectitude
- Not stringing up flags (Themiclesian culture demands flags be strung up during peace, which is always in the palace)
- Shouting in the direction of the Emperor
- Standing in the middle of and facing south in the Gate of Rectitude
- Claiming they are loyalists (implying others are not)
- Claiming that Themiclesians are destined to be a great power
- Not bowing to the Gate of Rectitude while passing it
- Abuse of the term "Emperor" in their writings
Ultimately, the case never went to court, after the Nationalists were asked by the Royal Guard regiments to leave the palace.