Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu link=msg=16543I am not comfortable removing the ennumeration of the Ziu's powers.  It would be a drastic expansion of government power, and any such change should be considered in isolation and carefully.

Except that it's not an "expansion of state power" VS citizens: according with IX.6 those powers not enumerated in VII.3 are organically vested in the Provinces.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2022, 11:01:28 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 31, 2022, 06:39:01 PMI would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

I think it's a bad idea, and it's not something I'm willing to entertain in the context of this bill.  Limiting the powers of the Ziu is a way of protecting our citizens from future unknown abuse of their civil rights, since I don't think the Covenants are sufficient in the case of a country like Talossa.

So, using your own words, today the citizens are not protected from any "future unknown abuse of their civil rights" because those powers are not limited: Provinces have them. "Future unknown abuses of their civil rights" you are afraid of could be carried even today by the Provinces.

And I hope you all agree with me that in Talossa the national level is more suited and equipped (and active) to protect citizens from abuses than the provincial ones.

This is one of the few instances (there are more, like the whole VII.3.15) when in the OrgLaw survives a "U.S. federal approach" which is not part of the nature of our nationette that we should get rid of in my opinion. In by far the greatest part of the OrgLaw clearly the sovereignty flows top-down (from the Kingdom to Provinces) and not bottom-up. From a constitutional point of view Provinces derives their existence, powers and authority from the OrgLaw, they are created by the OrgLaw and partake in the Kingdom's own and exclusive sovereignty, and not the opposite way. One big fat evidence of this is the fact that Provinces do not need to consent to OrgLaw amendments because they are not the source of the Kingdom sovereignty (as in federal nations like the U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc...).

Those very few "U.S. instinctly surviving" pieces of the OrgLaw should be modified accordingly.

Your bill is fine -as it is (and with the agree that we should stop to add renumbering clauses in the future) but the above is a topic worth to be addressed I believe.

Gratüleschaziuns Dept. þon Túischac'h!

Quote from: Lüc on February 08, 2023, 04:17:35 AMThis. At the end of the day, the new clause is all-encompassing and I personally don't feel any less represented by it. Besides, it certainly does a better job of covering all bases than explicitly enumerating sexual orientations or identities.

Secondly and less specific to myself, we have a significant transgender and gender-nonconforming community in Talossa. It's at best debatable whether they would be covered by the provisions of the original clause.

Thanks, and I fully agree with you.

BTW I just remembered, and with a little digging find out, that I was the one behind the current text of A.11 (7 years ago) and the 8th covenant (11th years ago) here and here... I might be obsessed but least I'm coherent :D

Quote from: Viteu on February 07, 2023, 05:26:40 PMFeels more like gay erasure, but okay.

From a strictly LGBTQ+ point a view, this is rather a large expansion.

This brief excerpt is significant:

QuoteGay Talossans may not be discriminated against in any way on the basis of their sexuality

Although there is an ongoing debate if today "Gay" is still appropriate or not to be used for both men and women, this sentence certainly doesn't include bisexuals and certainly doesn't remotely include gender identities.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 06, 2023, 10:26:24 PMI am happy to formally open a petition under the restored H.21.1 that Lüc da Schir be Túischac'h for the 58th Cosa, and stake my 14 seats to it.

I second this petition.

Which brings the total seats to: 24.

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 07, 2023, 08:27:55 AMis there any reason that a citizen should be discriminated against by the government?

There is of course no reason whatsoever, but that always happened and happens in the course of human history. So as the out-going Seneschal said

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 07, 2023, 10:10:39 AMAll of life is discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws just create "protected classes" to prohibit discrimination on certain bases lawmakers don't approve of.

anti-discrimination laws need to list those classes of citizens.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 07, 2023, 08:03:48 AMWhile I very much 100% agree with the sentiment behind all of this, I think the language might be a little too sweeping.  Many Talossans are assigned responsibilities by way of their postings that do not apply to everyone else.  That's why the original version stated "rights and responsibilities associated with property, marriage and adoption."  For example, the Seneschal is required to "monitor both official and unofficial Talossan websites, contact the owner as needed, and maintain a public list of official and bogus or fake sites as they are brought to the government's attention" (Lexh.A.18.3).  That's not a responsibility that "applies to all citizens equally."

So the new 10.1 and 11 seem perfect, but can we tweak the language of your proposed 10, so that it more closely means what you intend it to mean?

I see what you mean. What about this reformulation?

Quote10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way or given preference on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions with regards to the enjoyment of any right recognized by the law and the discharge of the duties inherent in those rights and to any activity within the Kingdom and its territories.
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 re-asserts the rights given to its citizens by organic and statutory laws, and 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.

WHEREAS Organic Law § XI.8 enumerates the organically protected rights of Talossan citizens;

WHEREAS el Lexhatx § A.10 currently reads «Gay Talossans are hereby accorded all the rights of their heterosexual counterparts. This simply means that the rights and responsibilities associated with property, marriage and adoption apply to all Talossans equally. Gay Talossans may not be discriminated against in any way on the basis of their sexuality with regards to any activities within the Kingdom and its territories, including employment, Government operations and military service. This law gives no preference to any Talossan on the basis of his/her sexual identification, but simply renders such a consideration absolutely irrelevant.»;

WHEREAS that "equality clause" could be paradoxically felt nowadays discriminatory with its only references to "gay" and "sexuality", and outdated language as "sexual identification";

WHEREAS although in October 1991 it was groundbreaking, thirty years later its language doesn't reflect anymore the evolution in civil rights and the cultural progress made by societies and it desperately needs an update;

WHEREAS el Lexhatx § A.11 currently reads «Marriage is a civil right, guaranteed to all consenting citizens of proper age regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. 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 that fall under this definition, hereby re-asserting the rights given to its citzens by the Organic Law; and 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.»;

WHEREAS also the language of that section could be updated, more effectively linked with the "equality clause" and Organic Law § XI.8 and simplified;

WHEREAS that section originally adopted in 2004 and amended in 2016, has provided for «Talossan Invincible Moral Support to those who are seeking to have the laws of their country reflect the far more progressive laws of Talossa» and so it's necessary to keep «the far more progressive laws of Talossa» to be progressive;

AND WHEREAS the tenth and eleventh section of Title A of el Lexhatx could be more effectively reworded to better reflects today environment and their application broadened to the more extended enumerations of protected rights provided in Organic Law § XI.8;

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts in Ziu assembled that el Lexhatx § A.10 and A.11 be amended to read as follows:

Quote10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way or given preference on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions with regards to the enjoyment of any right recognized by the law and the discharge of the duties inherent in those rights and to any activity within the Kingdom and its territories.
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 re-asserts the rights given to its citizens by organic and statutory laws, and 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.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Üc R. Tärfâ (MC, FREEDEM)

---

EDIT 2023-02-08: § 10 in the proposal edited as in this post. Below follows the original text:

Quote10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way or given preference on the basis of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions with regards to any activity within the Kingdom and its territories. All rights and responsibilities deriving from and recognized by the law shall apply to all citizens equally.

A cross-referencing fix now to repair the law might be a good endeavour.

However in the future "renumbering provisions" in bills should be simply avoided to avoid (sic!) generating many of those broken references.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 06, 2023, 02:22:04 PMHm. Breneir, maybe the thing to do here is just to take the census out of it? Is there any reason why we can't just direct the Chancery to send out a survey by itself?

This is the crucial point. Clearly C 1.2.2.3 was written with the Census as a "real" census possibly collecting various categories of personal information (like employments, age, degrees, etc), and not a general collection of skills.

With C 1.2.2.3 written as it is I agree it's difficult to collect those «during the census» without modifying it, but as that section stands it works in achieving its original purpose.

It seems to me beyond the scope of the original idea and too unnecessarily laborious to meedle with C 1.2.2.3 just to do something that could be enacted in a more simple way without modifying a law that works.

Something like the original question at the start of this thread doesn't necessarily conflict in my view with D.8.2 or D.8.4. Of course it should be worded carefully, and individual answers of a citizen might contain personal informations that may fall within the protected areas of D.8, so every answer will need a sort of "confidentiality revision".

Also, there's no real gain in efficiency in doing it «during the census». A simple survey can be e-mailed to every citizen by the Chancery any time.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on February 06, 2023, 01:14:48 PMWould @the TNC leadership in the Cosă have any objections to a PD re-establishing the rules for electing a Túischac'h? Time is pressing if we want a Túischac'h to preside over a Living Cosă on the 25th.

As the clock is ticking, this could be done immediately also with an emergency PD signed by the current Seneschal. Restoring the needed articles erased from el Lexhatx by a genuine mistake which deal with the election of an organically required figure essential for the working of the Cosa is well inside the perimeter of the caretaker powers of the sitting Government in my opinion, as long as the new articles are the verbatim copy of those previously in force.