Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 09, 2021, 03:35:45 PM
So you want the republic back again? As noted... How well did that do? You where down to 20 members and no activity? And you want to return to that? You returned to the fold to mold the kingdom back to your own image, doing away with king and regent, doing away with active citzans (perticulely those who disagree with you) and to hell with everything else. The republic didn't work or you would have let go, moved on and left the monarchy in the dust, but you didn't and apprently you couldn't let go because of what King Ben did to you. You Brought that attitude back with you, how dare king John succeed where you failed, how dare he re-envigarate the kingdom with out you, how dare he not call you back to the fold knowing that you would most likely hate him because you hate what he stands for, he has succeeded where Ben failed and you hate him for it. Plain and simple.


I already want withdraw my candidature, because I already can't stand for what I believe him without getting attacked form all angles. Even our Regent had to take a step back when you and he agruged to the point that there was no going back, he returned.

Id even go so far and renounce my citzanship too, but what would that change? Another monarchist run out of town who dared to raise his head. Oh no I'm staying. I brought myself a popcorn machine.

Conversely, you want a country where the monarch is beyond reproach and to question him to is to question the essence of the country. How did that work out last time? Correlation always implies causation, right?

If your fellow monarchists are not jumping in to defend you or take up the cause of monarchism, take it up with them.  If they want to blame the big bad republicans for their cowardice, then they never really saw Talossa as something worth fighting for.  But don't blame Miestra or others for setting the record straight. This is the function of politics in a vibrant democracy—you advocate for your position to move the needle from minority to majority. You may not win initially, and your appetite for change may be greater than others, but it's not your opponent's fault because people don't buy your position wholesale. You keep advocating; and you keep working to change minds.

You want to advocate monarchism? Fine. Do it. But don't misstate the political history behind the respective movements or pretend you can speak to the very real experiences many endured way before you even knew what Talossa was just to play the victim when you get checked.

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 09, 2021, 09:10:21 AM

Quote from: GV on April 09, 2021, 08:42:53 AM

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 09, 2021, 07:48:15 AM
I have no insider knowledge for you, however again we are all entitled as citzans of talossa to prioritize or extra talossa activities should we see fit as we must respect each other in that.

Not when he is well and is monarch.  If I can go incommunicado for one week as PM (way back when) and have the country up in arms, we can get up-in-arms over King John's rest and relaxation.

Who are you to talk of his health? Maybe he does not see talossa a safe space anymore for him to divulge his personal, private information. That can include his health (both physical and mental),his personal circumstances,  his professional work life balance. If he wishes not to disclose that information it is his prerogative.

We already have had citzans of talossa been the subject of targeted attack on this right to a private life though the contacting of someone's manager at work, a threat to there professional livelihood.

When I first joined talossa back in 2014 I never dreamt of such a thing occurring. This was a fun, vibrant place as you have prointed out in your previous post. We should not attack each other to a point where people have to re-evaluate weather continued engagement could put there professional lives at such a risk.

We have rights to our own privacy and no law in talossa will and shall never infringe that right.

Back when I joined in 2006, the monarchist were happy because they were in power. Talossa was a one-party state. Then came reunison and the prevailing wisdom in the RUMP was that the republicans would be contained. But as they grew in power, or rather, as the opposition to the one-party state grew and forced the RUMP from power, the rhetoric overtly changed to, "if another party gets in power; I'm going inactive/renouncing etc." This was certainly what happened with Mick (an avowed monarchist I still respect). Hooly jumped ship because his power waned and then he did some shady stuff and did not want to answer for it before Talossan courts. Others have disappeared because they no longer have the power the hardcore monarchist once had.  I can go through and archive my old gmail conversations with several RUMPers and do a massive document dump. I was there; you were not.

This is NOT about hateful rhetoric.  This is not about heated debate.  That is pure gaslighting and revisionism on your part to obfuscate a patent ad hominem attack on republicanism.  The reality is that minds had already been made that if republicanism actually stood a chance; or a weakened monarchy were possible; or the Talossan conservatives were too weak, then people would leave Talossa because, simply, they did not want to be in the minority EVER. The fact that you're trying to spin this as anything else underscores that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Finally, you have the audacity to say to GV, "Who are you to talk of his health?" and then speculate on John's snowflakery. The King does not get to play private citizen and then control the fate of Talossa at whim. The monarch is an organ of the State, something your lot is keen to perpetuate. Organs of the State are treated as that--if the Ziu and the Seneschal and the Cort and any other part of the State is subject to scrutiny, the King does not get to hide behind, "wahhhh you are being mean to me" or "that's personal; you're not entitled to that." Actually, because he is an organ of the State, he has put his entire life under scrutiny and availed it to public question. You don't get to act offended because we're doing exactly what gets done to every other part of the State to John.  The fact is, you're defending cowardice out of some Talossan daddy issues, and it's intolerable. Talossa was technically more vibrant in 2006 when it was a one-party state, because we could do things like "silly walks" and "funny hats" and talk about beer, you know, when it was the virtual man-cave for a bunch of cis-het white guys.

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 09, 2021, 07:48:15 AM
I have no insider knowledge for you, however again we are all entitled as citzans of talossa to prioritize or extra talossa activities should we see fit as we must respect each other in that.

That's not what he's doing. He's virtually abdicated without even so much as a cursory explanation or eta on return. But even setting that aside, if Talossan want to keep the monarchy as is, they could have voted for that (anonymously in fact thanks to those radicals in the Free Democrats). If you're going to take on some great defender role, at least bother to get your facts right.

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 08, 2021, 03:26:18 PM
I would hearby wish to submit my candidature for the position of party leader.

Dark have been my dreams of late, the outside world seems grimmer than before. I used to think of talossa as a safe harbor of fun an whimsy. With a King that was a kind, interesting and benevolent.

Now we have a government that claims to be acting in our interests, yet is tearing apart our nation, both emotionally and practically. If elected I will be engaging in discussion with the free democrats, I will call them out where I see it. However I am very much done with the protracted arguments driving this nation aprt, I am very much done. I fear that down we will reach a untenable situation that will drive us apart for good.

The talossan equivalent of those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th right here on display. We have our own tea party!

+1 derivativist
0 Peculiarist

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 08, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
Long term citizens have felt so ostracised, belittled, silenced and canceled for their veiws and have since disengaged because they don't want to argue with people any more.

And now you claim that the majority now agree with you. Could it not be you have driven people away to a point the no longer wish to get involved with our policies because they are so disenfranchised with the entire process?

They may no longer be heard from but I will be their voice. I see them. If they wish to reach out to me my door as party leader will always be open.

No, people think being challenged means they're being silenced, or the new four-letter word to describe it, "cancelled." This is nonsense. People are choosing to leave because they lost their power on Talossa, and now you're just gaslighting.

Also, you're not their hero; you're not their advocate; and you're not going to gaslight your way to being the victim.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on March 23, 2021, 10:38:34 PM
I like this, but are there typos in the first ("deprived of life, liberty, or property") and next to last ("subjected to cruel and unusual punishment") sentences of the proposed language?

My lifelong battle with prepositions rages another day.  I do not have time to check, but I think fixing those typos in the readopted amendment is fine. The proposed text has been updated accordingly.

So overdue, but this is the act I propose to fix the issue identified here.

WHEREAS, the Fifth Covenant to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms once read as follows:

Any person charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to request information on his legal rights. No accused person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life, liberty, or property for the same offence, or without due process of law; nor shall any citizen be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself. Excessive fines, and cruel and bizarre punishments, shall not be inflicted.


WHEREAS, the Due Process Amendment, 50RZ26, received sufficient support in the Ziu and the requisite majority during referendum to modify that language;

WHEREAS, the Still Into This Amendment, 53RZ18, inadvertently reverted this covenant to the foregoing language;

WHEREAS, said omission from 53RZ18 appears entirely accidental and unintentional.

WHEREAS, the Ziu desires to remedy this mistake by re-adopting, without modification, the Fifth Covenant as enumerated in 50RZ26.

THEREFORE, the Fifth Covenant to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, Article XI of the Organic Law, is repealed in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the following language is adopted as the Fifth Covenant, Organic Law, Article XI.5:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor denied equal protection of law. Any person charged with an offense must be informed of their legal rights upon seizure by the government, and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. No person shall be subject to answer to the same criminal offense after the criminal charge has been properly adjudicated in a court of law, nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself, nor shall any person be subjected to excessive fines, nor shall any person be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The Ziu shall have the power to enforce this Covenant by appropriate legislation.

Noi urent q'estadra så:

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on February 27, 2021, 10:17:54 AM

Quote from: Viteu on February 25, 2021, 08:55:52 PM

Quote from: GV on January 13, 2021, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 03:56:54 PM
Man, it's embarrassing to get a reminder of how little the Ziu (me included) actually reads this stuff.  :(

I'm as guilty as anyone, I fear.

I'd ask this also get clarked.

Is this a bill? In this threads current form I don't see anything to Clark.

This is on me. I said I'd submit a bill and never got around to it. I'll throw something together

Quote from: GV on January 13, 2021, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 03:56:54 PM
Man, it's embarrassing to get a reminder of how little the Ziu (me included) actually reads this stuff.  :(

I'm as guilty as anyone, I fear.

I'd ask this also get clarked.

Please clark!

Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on February 04, 2021, 11:08:36 AM
Not at all a healthy separation of power. Normally a Judge is supposed to interpret the law and award a fair and equitable sentence. However, sometimes they are required to pass certain Direction to render complete justice in certain matters where no law exists.  Judge made laws are considered interim measures, until such time the legislature takes a conscious decision on the same. Here we have a sitting Judge framing the Constitution. Ha ha. 

To think of that these same very people had problems with others wearing many hats.

False accusations aside, what about this act is me framing the constitution?

I wanted to bring the following to the Ziu's attention.  I went to check a covenant while preparing a response to Meistra in the Legal Committee thread, and it occurred to me that we accidentally overrode a covenant when adopting the 2017 Organic Law.

The Fifth Covenant, pre-50RZ26, read as follows:

Any person charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to request information on his legal rights. No accused person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life, liberty, or property for the same offence, or without due process of law; nor shall any citizen be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself. Excessive fines, and cruel and bizarre punishments, shall not be inflicted.

The Due Process Amendment, 50RZ26, modified that language to:

No person shall be deprived life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor denied equal protection of law. Any person charged with an offense must be informed of their legal rights upon seizure by the government, and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. No person shall be subject to answer to the same criminal offense after the criminal charge has been properly adjudicated in a court of law, nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself, nor shall any person be subjected to excessive fines, nor shall any person be subjected cruel and unusual punishment. The Ziu shall have the power to enforce this Covenant by appropriate legislation.

The Still Into This Amendment, 53RZ18, reverted this back to the pre-Due Process Amendment language.  Hence, the old Covenant appears to have been replaced upon adoption of the 2017 Org Law, and is current recorded in same.    I'm assuming this was inadvertent because Ian P. co-sponsored 50RZ26.  Hence, it appears we overlooked this and, I'd wager, it was intended for the 2017 Org Law to not change this Covenant. 

Although I encourage another to do so, I will draft a bill to fix this, which I hope should not be controversial, in a week or so.

Per the SOS, the Lobby is open once something is being discussed.  I'm unsure about the rules of which forum is restricted to the Ziu, but given the clarification, no need for this thread.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 12, 2021, 12:57:09 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 09:57:14 AM
Are the citizenry in general really not allowed to reply to discussions here?  For goodness sake, change that so people like the justices can participate!

I'm not the author of this thread, but since it is in the lobby of the Ziu, anyone can come and go in the lobby...

If that's the case. My apologies for the confusion. I'm actually unsure exactly which legislative forums are restricted to the Ziu.

Tenant/tenet... Tomato/typo.