Senate Candidate Interview - Martyn Kiryu
SkyGreen sits down with Martyn to interview about their candidacy
Written by SkyGreen
SkyGreen: Dear Martyn, thank you for doing this interview with me, I'll start us off with a simple one.
Why are you running?
Martyn: I did an interview last night with Fori and talked myself out of the original reason: I was gunna use it to get to the Bar where I thought I could do good for the region. As I was talking my way through it, I remembered how much I enjoyed navigating the legal spiderweb we force upon ourselves- I miss it, I did well at it, and I crave it in a wierd manner.
SkyGreen: Yeah the Citizen Spotlight! It was a nice read. With that posted we have seen your backstory a bit more, but could you tell me what skills and experience do you think you'll put to good use as a potential Senator?
Martyn: I've been a legal Eagle since my initial 6 year involvement in TCB. And I mean, from my initial involvement. The first thing I did was stand for the Central Committee (an old version of TCBs Senate), where I pushed for greater citizen rights from day dot. Whilst the situation is completely different here (citizens already have 95% of the rights I believe they should have), and therefore I don't need to focus on broad citizen democratic rights, it allows me to focus on nuances such as the likes of Citizen involvement in the PA, for example.
I've been recently concerned about an unintentional curbing of citizen rights in the form of opt in Peoples Assembly rights, and whilst I can respect the opinion the "other side" are arguing, I strongly believe that if we offer a right to citizens, it should be __all__ citizens, not just those a body would like/chooses to acknowledge. Whilst I don't believe that it would be used to maliciously block citizens from using their voice, the very fact it can be takes rights from us, the citizens of Europeia.
SkyGreen: Thank you for the thorough answer!
Moving on, you mention oversight in your platform. We've recently had some quite intense heat between the Senate and the Executive.
How do you think oversight should be handled?
Martyn: As a group. We can't have a 1 man wrecking ball come through the executive and damage it in the manner I believe it nearly was. Whilst I believe every official should be subject to overview, its important to recognise sensitivity in certain areas, whilst also asking questions which may allow the executive to realise any potential cock ups.
I also believe in this being as public as reasonably possible- Internal affairs such as recruitment aren't sensitive, and therefore where there's a concern, it should be asked about. However, in certain areas, for example, ongoing military issues, it's not pheasible to do so, and that's luckily where we have strong options to make that private.
I would argue that, for a recent example, McEntire had every right to ask questions towards an outgoing executive, especially as it was relevant and immediate to an ongoing issue, however I do believe that there should be limitations on that. It has to be relevant, it has to be recent, and it has to be a question that the outgoing executive can answer better than the current one, and effected more so than the current one could reasonably fix.
I'd say this is one of my big issues, and it's not an instant single person can fix thing. It'll take discussion, it'll take working with people to fix, but I do firmly believe it's an issue which currently has a loophole- we can be appointed to a role, and as long as we're not currently in office, we're legally free from oversight; how are we supposed to learn from that?
Oversight is a learning tool when used properly.
That's how I think it should be handled.
SkyGreen: That actually leads me to my next question, you mention in your platform that your intention is to look [at] what you conceive as loopholes and try to patch them. Can you tell me more about this?
Martyn: That previous is, again, my big one. I think others include long titles and how they can be misconstrued based on language external to Europeia. We don't formally define our long titles as long titles anywhere, we just expect people to understand that they are legally operable titles. I'd like to prevent future misunderstandings which, were we not supported so well by long term legalese fluent folk, are easy to make. I'd also like to begin removing Latin from our laws- it's a dead language spoken by the well educated. Average Europeian Joe doesn't understand latin, and therefore those laws which lean more heavily on it should be changed to be reasonably understood by an average citizen. Whether that's by defining that latin in English or replacing it completely in lamens terms, I strongly believe it'll lead to a more inclusive and better understood legal system.
SkyGreen: Alrighty! Thank you for answering my questions. To wrap it up, is there anything you'd like to say that you haven't had the chance to mention?
Martyn: There are a lot of great candidates for this election, and a large amount of them too, so this election may be a bit more of a difficult choice than normal. To the reader, your part in the coming election is the most important- we need as many people as possible to get out to vote, and do their part in keeping Europeia a well represented region. Read the campaigns and supporting material, get talking to your candidates, and make sure you understand what you're voting for. And on that note I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing my fellow candidates the votes they deserve!
Thanks to EBC for gathering together as many candidates opinions as humanly possible. These articles are super important for getting peoples PoVs across, and give a better understanding of the candidates, so thanks to the whole team for that.
Oh, and Vote Kiryu
SkyGreen: Thank you for your time Martyn, have a nice day!
