Quote from: Eðo Grischun on February 11, 2023, 02:51:39 AMPoint of order.

My name appears to be missing from the list.

Apologies. Fixed.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AM

Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 01:12:56 PMWhere are these ongoing debates that "gay" is no longer appropriate to apply to women that isn't made up of a bunch of puppy activists trying to tell the elder gays how to queer?

Erasing all reference to the LGBT community under the guise of a broadly written "equality for all" provision, especially in light of the fact that the Second Covenant already accomplishes this, is gay erasure.  If it isn't, then spell out "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming." Seriously, I did not spend years doing activism so everyone can get a participation trophy at Pride.

But sure, erase all reference of the groups that are actually marginalized and score another victory for the assimilationist. Gay liberation is dead.

I'm afraid I don't fully grasp what you mean. I'm an (almost) 36 years old gay man, and certainly I don't want to tell anyone "how to queer" (which, by the way, is the whole point of the liberation movement).

Sure it was. (It's always a treat when assimilationist explain Gay Liberation.) In any event, that is exactly what you're telling me though--how to queer.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AMI do believe that a broader definition "regardless of sex, sexual orientations, gender, gender identities" explicitly includes and empower all the LGBTQ+ community better then spelling out a list of gays, lesbians etc will ever be able to do.

Explain to me what the exact legal meaning of "regardless of sex, sexual orientations, gender, gender identities" means in your mind. What is the legal difference between sex, sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity?  Where do you pull these distinctions and understandings?

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AM

Quote from: Viteu on February 09, 2023, 11:48:02 AMHow is this not armchair activism?

The current text of A.10 explicitly excludes a large part of the LGBTQ+ community and we shouldn't keep it as it is in our books: modifying it is not "gay erasing" but an act of including everyone of us in it.

You're wrong. You need to consider the context of the law. It was specifically a reaction to the political climate in the US against same-sex marriage.  I will remind you that, in the US, marriage was not something that necessarily impacted Trans- people the same way—a transwoman could marry a trans- or cisman; a transman could marry a trans- or ciswoman. The context for this statute is literally in the "This simply means..." provision. The use of "gay" is all-encompassing to LGB.  That is, a man intending to marry a woman does not face the same discrimination as a man intending to marry a man, or a woman intending to marry a woman. The plain meaning of the text, which is the hallmark of statutory interpretation, must be given weight; we must decline to read ambiguity where there is none. The plain meaning of the text means that it is all encompassing. By saying that some would argue that "gay" excludes lesbian or bisexual is reading ambiguity where there is none.

But sure, continue to think this isn't gay erasure.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 09, 2023, 06:29:08 AMIf you're open to some tweaks, it might be a good idea to mirror the phrasing of the OrgLaw in the first part of the proposed section 10.  If the two lists mean to accomplish basically the same thing, then it's just good practice to pick one phrasing and stick to it.  The OrgLaw says you can't discriminate "on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever."  Do you feel that's sufficient?  If not, maybe we should actually give some thought to adjusting the Second Covenant's language, instead.

Ok, I see your point.

QuoteSecond Covenant No discrimination, affirmative action schemes, or preferential treatment shall exist within the Kingdom of Talossa on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever, except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law. No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law. Separate consideration on the basis of sex may only exist in cases of propriety.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll consider this Covenant made of three different parts:

(A): No discrimination, affirmative action schemes, or preferential treatment shall exist within the Kingdom of Talossa on the grounds of race, colour, class, nobility, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, beliefs, language, or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever, except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law.

(B): No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law.

(C): Separate consideration on the basis of sex may only exist in cases of propriety.

Starting from the end:

Do you really need (C)? I don't envisage or see any situation where it should be acceptable in Talossa to have separate consideration on the basis of sex in cases of propriety.

This is about bathrooms. I agree with you if you intend to change the Second Covenant on this point only, subject to my objection discussed infra.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AMI wholly agree with (B), I'm not sure if this is the appropriate covenant for this important clause. What do you think? The 3rd covenant seems to me the more consequential place for this clause.

This isn't what the Baron is suggesting. Btu I'll let him speak for himself.

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AMRegarding (A), I  might not be impartial on this but I found my proposed text to be more all-encompassing and I'll prefer the logic to say that all citizens are equal before stating that none should be discriminated.

Encompassing of what exactly? That statute, as written, is a response to marriage discrimination. It's not really purposed for what you think it is. Not to mention, the Second Covenant accomplishes the very thing you're advocating for. So what exactly is the purpose?

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AMSo I'd propose this for the second covenant as an "equality declaratory clause":

(In the preamble I removed the reference to customs and traditions because I feel that some of the very very old customs of traditions of Talossa were, well, questionable , but if you feel that this is too much I don't feel passionate about it, and the reference to "preserve the ethnic heritage)

QuotePreamble. The Covenant of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in them to all Talossan citizens, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. These Covenants shall be interpreted [remove: in a manner consistent with Talossan custom and tradition, and] with the aim in mind of preserving and enhancing the [remove: ethnic] heritage of the Talossan nation and the peace, order, and good government for the Kingdom of Talossa.

Second Covenant. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, colour, ethnicity, class, nobility, age, language, nationality, religion, belief, political opinion, personal and social conditions or any other physical or societal parameters of any kind whatsoever except as provided for elsewhere in this Organic Law

Third Covenant. Talossans have the right to peaceful assembly whether in private facilities or in the open air, provided that such assembly neither disrupts traffic or legal commercial activity, or unduly inconveniences people. Talossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants. No religious or ideological organisation shall be "established" by law.

No. I am not in favor of this. It is insulting enough that mutable characteristics (e.g. nobility, religion, language, belief, etc.) are afforded the same protections as immutable characteristics (e.g. race, sex, gender, etc.).  I abjectly and without reservation will fight against every and any attempt to expand the list of mutable characteristics to include things like "political opinion."

Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AMAnd to make § A.10 and 11 "equality militant clauses".

Quote10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and as provided in Article IX of the Organic Law may not be discriminated against or given preference with regards to the enjoyment of any right recognized by organic and statutory laws and the discharge of the duties inherent in those rights and to any activity within the Kingdom and its territories. It is the high task of the Kingdom to remove those obstacles of social nature which, by effectively limiting the freedom and equality of its citizens, prevent the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all citizens in the life of the nation.
10.1 Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age. Any sacredness of marriage is between the parties involved and is a strictly personal issue. The Kingdom recognises any and all form of marriage or legal union between two persons, unless they are consanguineous up to the fourth degree of relationship, that fall under this definition.
11. The Kingdom recognises and actively encourages all citizens to embrace their uniqueness and to pursue the full development of their being, and, re-asserting the rights given to its citizens by organic and statutory laws, provides Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa.

However given the entrenched nature of the Covenants, amending them could be out of reach. The proposed text above of A.10 and A.11 should do the trick even with the current second covenant.

Or, hear me out, just make your proposed good-guy badge/armchair provision 10.1.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 08, 2023, 02:48:36 PMI'm not sure that this is the most productive approach to a discussion of the best language to protect everyone's rights.  As far as I can tell, we all want to be more inclusive in the principles and protections put into the law.

Everyone's rights already are protected. How is this not armchair activism?

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 08, 2023, 08:03:50 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 07:56:17 PMBecause you think that something is impossible means we shouldn't strive for it?

Have you ever heard of John Hasnas?

I do not agree with his theory that the Rule of Law turns people into slaves of the State.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on February 08, 2023, 05:52:57 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 04:13:57 PMFor those who think that I am manufacturing the argument about the Rule of Law, here is a perspective from the UK:

• State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process. It requires that judges be appointed through a process that is not controlled by the government of the day, and have security of tenure. Judges are not accountable to politicians for their rulings – hence, judges in the UK may voluntarily attend parliamentary committees to discuss the administration of justice, but do so on the understanding that they will not be questioned about particular cases. Flawed judgments can be challenged by legal routes, usually an appeal to a higher court.
• Threats to judicial independence are often considered a particularly worrying sign of democratic backsliding. The removal of an independent judiciary makes it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves against unfair or disproportionate state action, and facilitates the erosion of other facets of democracy – for example, making it more difficult to challenge unfair electoral practices.
• Poland and Hungary are two well-known examples of this. The Polish government has systematically reduced judicial independence via changes to the appointments system and disciplinary arrangements for judges; in Hungary, judicial security of tenure was violated by lowering the retirement age to force out some judges, and later new courts were established to take over some of the most politically sensitive cases. The most extreme attacks on judicial independence in other states have seen judges imprisoned in response to their rulings
• However, independence can also be threatened by less obvious means – in particular rhetoric which pressurises judges to deliver certain rulings, or which aims to reduce public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, Donald Trump was criticised for attacking a 'so-called judge' who struck down one of his executive orders as unconstitutional.

Source: https://constitution-unit.com/2022/12/15/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20law%20is,fundamental%20rights%20and%20judicial%20independence.

In theory the idea of an impartial judiciary is a very good idea but in practice it is impossible, both in Talossa and every other country. Judges are not sequestered away and kept in the dark, they are picked by politicians, they vote, every judge is biased by his or her personal views on politics. In the United States a judge put in office by Donald Trump is more likely to be conservative, one put in office by Joe Biden will be more likely to be liberal. However I do appreciate that the UC is going to discuss this and I assume they will share whatever decision they eventually reach. The parties and their members have no control over the issue as it sits right now and so, other than asking out of curiosity how the discussion is going it is nobody elses business. My only problem with the so-called "impartial judiciary" is the incredibly small number of active, knowledgeable citizens currently available in the country makes it extremely difficult to fill all government vacancies. My final thought on the subject is that the subject should be dropped by all of those not involved in the actual discussion. Sorry Breneir but this means you as well as any others who are not justices and the justices need to have their discussion in private.

Because you think that something is impossible means we shouldn't strive for it?

For those who think that I am manufacturing the argument about the Rule of Law, here is a perspective from the UK:

• State observance of the rule of law requires the availability of effective and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that citizens must be able to access the courts, and be heard by independent judges, under a fair process. It requires that judges be appointed through a process that is not controlled by the government of the day, and have security of tenure. Judges are not accountable to politicians for their rulings – hence, judges in the UK may voluntarily attend parliamentary committees to discuss the administration of justice, but do so on the understanding that they will not be questioned about particular cases. Flawed judgments can be challenged by legal routes, usually an appeal to a higher court.
• Threats to judicial independence are often considered a particularly worrying sign of democratic backsliding. The removal of an independent judiciary makes it more difficult for citizens to defend themselves against unfair or disproportionate state action, and facilitates the erosion of other facets of democracy – for example, making it more difficult to challenge unfair electoral practices.
• Poland and Hungary are two well-known examples of this. The Polish government has systematically reduced judicial independence via changes to the appointments system and disciplinary arrangements for judges; in Hungary, judicial security of tenure was violated by lowering the retirement age to force out some judges, and later new courts were established to take over some of the most politically sensitive cases. The most extreme attacks on judicial independence in other states have seen judges imprisoned in response to their rulings
• However, independence can also be threatened by less obvious means – in particular rhetoric which pressurises judges to deliver certain rulings, or which aims to reduce public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, Donald Trump was criticised for attacking a 'so-called judge' who struck down one of his executive orders as unconstitutional.

Source: https://constitution-unit.com/2022/12/15/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20law%20is,fundamental%20rights%20and%20judicial%20independence.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 08, 2023, 01:25:29 PM

Quote from: Viteu on February 08, 2023, 01:20:55 PMThe UC works slowly.

But the real question is whether Talossa respects the Rule of Law.  Talossa must understand that the Rule of Law requires an independent and impartial judiciary. To allow a UC Judge to preside over a  matter that involves an election where they stood as a candidate or politicked, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges Government conduct when they help prop up the Government, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges the Organicity of a statute that the UC Judge voted for, is to remove the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial judiciary (i.e. to keep the Judiciary truly as a separate branch) and wants the Rule of Law, or it does not.

@Viteu I will continue to check in on this discussion. I am curious to see what the UC decides with respect to its internal governance. And I suspect, after the recent furore, I'm not the only one watching now.

With respect, I do not think that the TNC actually believes that this is really a question/issue for the UC to resolve, especially in light of the administration language in the Legal Repair Act that Mr. Davinescu is pushing.  It seems to me that the only reason the TNC cares about the opinion of the UC is because SJ Cjantscheir said she would refer the question to internal discussion. This should not be seen as absolving the TNC of answering whether it supports an independent and impartial Judiciary and, by extension, the Rule of Law, in Talossa.

Notwithstanding how armchair this all is--Fine, let's add "S" to the initialism and erase our struggle in its entirety. 

Gay liberation is dead.

Oh, how about appropriating the argument that, "Talossa isn't really big enough for people to discriminate. Do we really need this language in the first place?"

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 07, 2023, 07:03:36 AMI am grateful for the judge's opinion, above. I do think that some of our criminal laws could be shoehorned in under existed provisions of the OrgLaw, but some cannot.  It seems wiser to recognize that we do want the capability to enact criminal laws and to regulate some administrative aspects of the justice system.  Should the Cort pu Inalt begin actively working on its own administrative stuff, consistently, then I would support that very much and would be happy to get the Ziu out of its way with any statutes.  So overall, I do think these provisions are very necessary.

Regarding administration, I fear that this could be used by the Ziu to control/punish the UC especially if done under the guise of responding to the populist whims of the majority angry at an unpopular decision.

As I have said elsewhere, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial Judiciary, a necessary component to the Rule of Law, or it does not.

The UC works slowly.

But the real question is whether Talossa respects the Rule of Law.  Talossa must understand that the Rule of Law requires an independent and impartial judiciary. To allow a UC Judge to preside over a  matter that involves an election where they stood as a candidate or politicked, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges Government conduct when they help prop up the Government, or to allow a UC Judge to preside over a matter that challenges the Organicity of a statute that the UC Judge voted for, is to remove the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial judiciary (i.e. to keep the Judiciary truly as a separate branch) and wants the Rule of Law, or it does not.

Where are these ongoing debates that "gay" is no longer appropriate to apply to women that isn't made up of a bunch of puppy activists trying to tell the elder gays how to queer?

Erasing all reference to the LGBT community under the guise of a broadly written "equality for all" provision, especially in light of the fact that the Second Covenant already accomplishes this, is gay erasure.  If it isn't, then spell out "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming." Seriously, I did not spend years doing activism so everyone can get a participation trophy at Pride.

But sure, erase all reference of the groups that are actually marginalized and score another victory for the assimilationist. Gay liberation is dead.

Feels more like gay erasure, but okay.

I haven't followed most of the proposed legislation in the Hopper in may years for reasons stated elsewhere, so tonight is my first time seeing this Act.

I appreciate the general idea behind this Act and have long advocated for bill drafters to reference the part of the Org Law that gives the Ziu authority to act in that area. So I'm kinda loving what this Act is doing.

Based on a quick comparison of (what I hope is) most of the provisions in Title A and G of el Lexhatx to the Org Law, it appears that there may be an argument that the Ziu may have acted within its authority.

I post this only for consideration and am not entirely convinced either way on the issue.

Org.L.Art.VII.3 vests the Ziu with the "power to make laws for peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom with respect to:"
2. census and statistics
3. weights and measures
4. currency, coinage, and legal tender
6. copyrights, patents, and trademarks
7. Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, radio, television, internet, and other like services
8. Defense of the Kingdom
11. Immigration
12. Treason and sedition
15. Matters referred to the Ziu by the Government of the Province
16. Execution of the Federal Government
17. Symbols etc. of the Kingdom

The provisions of Title A could fall within the foregoing as follows:

Lexh.A.1 – 6 – No comment
7.1  - definitions of fraud and harassment
7.2 – Crimes Against the Kingdom –
7.2.1 – Treason – see VII.3.12
7.2.2. – Perverting the course of justice – see VII.3.16
7.2.3 – Sedition – see VII.3.12
7.2.4 – Contempt of Court – maybe VII.3.16
7.2.5 -  Perjury – see VII.3.16
7.2.6 – Crimes against state property –
   7.2.6.1 – see VII.3.4, 8, 16
   7.2.6.2 – see VII.3.6
   7.2.6.3. – see VII.3.7
   7.2.6.4 – see VII.8 and 16
7.2.7 – Solicitation – this is fine if the crime itself is permissible (meaning, solicitation of sedition would pass muster, see supra)
7.2.8 – Conspiracy – see solicitation, supra.
7.2.9 – Bribery – see VII.3.8
7.2.10 – Bringing Talossa into Disrepute – see VII.3.8 and 16

7.3 Crimes against the person
7.3.1 – Physical and Sexual Violence
7.3.2 – Fraud and harassment – depends on how it is done (e.g. over the internet? By phone?)
7.3.3 – theft or invasion of privacy – depends on the exact nature of the crime (e.g. monetary value could fall under VII.3.4; IP clearly falls under VII.3.6, etc.). But see the Fourth Covenant for the right to privacy.  .
7.3.4 – Defamation – if done by computer, phone, etc., see VII.3.7 but also, the First Covenant says a person shall be responsible for the libelous abuse of the right to speak, write, and publish freely.
7.3.5 – Deprives an individual of the free exercise of rights under Org Law – see Tenth Covenant

7.15 – see VII.3. 7 and 11,

7.18 – see VII.3.7 and 16

7.20 – see VII.3.17

Most of the remaining sections under Title A may not actually constitute criminal law.

Next, Title J. Telecomuna – doesn't appear to be a criminal statute, but see VII.3.7 and 16,

In terms of criminal punishment, perhaps the Fifth Covenant, which also grants the Ziu the power to enforce it with appropriate legislation.

The Sixth Covenant withholds all rights from a person who engages in activities to injure, endanger, risk, or compromise the physical health, privacy or tranquility of other person through pretended exercise of said right.
 
The Ninth Covenant speaks directly to criminal prosecutions by the Crown.
 
The Tenth Covenant protects against infringement of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Covenants and permits recovery of punitive and compensatory damages. (Perhaps more civil?)

Of course, VII.3.15 suggests that a workaround might be if all of the provinces passed laws allowing the National Government to enact criminal statutes.
 
I am 50-50 on whether the Act is correct in that all or part of Title A or G is inorganic as is or if the comparison outlined above is correct.  For a conclusive answer, however, the King, SOS, or Seneschal may refer the issue to the Uppermost Cort for an advisory opinion pursuant to VIII.6.

Hope this is helpful.

Separately, as it relates to the time to appeal, I no reason why the UC cannot promulgate a rule requiring all appeals be filed within 90 days.  This is exactly how it works in our neighbor to the South. I will ask the UC to consider promulgating such a rule; of course, however, our deliberations will be confidential.

V

Also, to which Talossan cort would one appeal a decision of the UC?

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on February 05, 2023, 05:38:05 PMEh have you checked our big next door neighbours supreme Court recently? They are appointed by a elected leader, which in itself is a political choice... isn't the point of a UC for appeals anyway? if you feel a ruling was biased by politics and have the evidence to back it up, surely you appeal the case on those grounds?

SCOTUS Justices routinely recuse themselves in matters in which they  presided before being appointed (such as if they were an appellate court judge) or if they helped with a statute or regulation. A Justice would not preside over a matter involving their previous work. In fact, a criticism of Thomas is that he doesn't recuse himself from ACA cases when his wife if a lobbies against the ACA.