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clause" could be paradoxically felt nowadays discriminatory with its only references to "gay" and "sexuality", and outdated language as "sexual identification";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. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2138.msg17505#msg17505) 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.
While 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?
Separate from the Baron's request above, is there any reason that a citizen
should be discriminated against by the government? Perhaps more high minded MZs than myself can come up with a reason.
Assuming there is not, if one of the purposes of this bill is to simplify the language, then why not bring it to it's logical conclusion:
Quote10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against or given preference for any reason 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.
Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 07, 2023, 08:27:55 AMSeparate from the Baron's request above, is there any reason that a citizen should be discriminated against by the government? Perhaps more high minded MZs than myself can come up with a reason.
Assuming there is not, if one of the purposes of this bill is to simplify the language, then why not bring it to it's logical conclusion:
Quote10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against or given preference for any reason 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.
The way this reads, citizens would not be able to form associations, become employed, or perform any other action that involves dealing with some people but not others.
All of life is discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws just create "protected classes" to prohibit discrimination on certain bases lawmakers don't approve of.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 07, 2023, 10:10:39 AMQuote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 07, 2023, 08:27:55 AMSeparate from the Baron's request above, is there any reason that a citizen should be discriminated against by the government? Perhaps more high minded MZs than myself can come up with a reason.
Assuming there is not, if one of the purposes of this bill is to simplify the language, then why not bring it to it's logical conclusion:
Quote10. All citizens have equal social dignity, are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against or given preference for any reason 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.
The way this reads, citizens would not be able to form associations, become employed, or perform any other action that involves dealing with some people but not others.
All of life is discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws just create "protected classes" to prohibit discrimination on certain bases they don't approve of.
I completely agree, but I think we are discussing two different things. The actions of private business and groups are different from the actions of the government and application of the law. And perhaps I misunderstand, but a theoretical private Talossan business can say we didn't hire you because you're not qualified for the job, but the Talossan government can't say you broke the law but it's OK because of your political affiliation, or vice-versa.
The purpose of this bill, and the original statute in the Lexhatx seems to be about the application of the law, not the running of private businesses. But again, I leave open the possibility for misunderstanding on my part.
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.
Feels more like gay erasure, but okay.
Quote from: Viteu on February 07, 2023, 05:26:40 PMFeels more like gay erasure, but okay.
@Üc R. Tärfâ , maybe this is a valid point. What do you think?
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: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 07, 2023, 07:10:20 PMQuote 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.
This. 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.
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 (https://talossa.proboards.com/post/145887/thread) (7 years ago) and the 8th covenant (11th years ago) here (https://talossa.proboards.com/post/78531/thread) and here (https://talossa.proboards.com/post/78212/thread)... I might be obsessed but least I'm coherent :D
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.
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?
with respect, V, I'm older than you and I think just as queer, and I like where Üc is going with this.
And let's just point out that trans Talossans were not only not envisaged by the original covenant, but would never have been allowed if the author of that covenant, KR1, were still with us. That guy was a virulent, spiteful transphobe. We need an updation.
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?"
I'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.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 07, 2023, 11:48:16 AMI 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.
If 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.
This is a very long list of "protected classes". Can some one explain why sex, gender, and gender identity all need to be listed?
Excuse the ignorance, but what is the fundamental difference between "gender" and "gender identity"? And how would we know your sex in order to discriminate against it, aside from your gender/gender identity?
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: 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).
I 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.
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.
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.
I 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.
Regarding (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.
So 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.
.
And 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.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on February 11, 2023, 11:11:42 AMQuote 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 AMQuote 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 AMQuote 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: Bråneu Excelsio on February 13, 2023, 12:10:49 PMGender is the social roles and expectations society put in you because of your sex [...]
We all decide on which part of the spectrum we are. That is gender identity.
This makes sense, however if these are the definitions that
@Üc R. Tärfâ has in mind, then it seems nonsensical that the government could discriminate against you because of the expectation society puts on you.
You could argue that the government may discriminate based on how well you "fit" those societal roles/expectations, but again the only way to know that would be based on your gender identity. Which would make the inclusion of "gender" redundant given the inclusion of "sex" (presumably what genitals you have), and "gender identity" (where you choose to "present" on the masculine/feminine spectrum in your respective society).
Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on February 13, 2023, 12:10:49 PMBut one of the things that always gets to me is when trans men students tell me they don't want to adopt masculine attitudes because they don't want to be assholes
As a man, I find this kind of offensive. As though the essence of masculinity resides in being an asshole. I have more thoughts, but I don't wish to derail the thread.
Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 13, 2023, 01:34:57 PMQuote from: Bråneu Excelsio on February 13, 2023, 12:10:49 PMBut one of the things that always gets to me is when trans men students tell me they don't want to adopt masculine attitudes because they don't want to be assholes
As a man, I find this kind of offensive. As though the essence of masculinity resides in being an asshole. I have more thoughts, but I don't wish to derail the thread.
Like water off a duck's back
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 13, 2023, 01:46:58 PMQuote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 13, 2023, 01:34:57 PMQuote from: Bråneu Excelsio on February 13, 2023, 12:10:49 PMBut one of the things that always gets to me is when trans men students tell me they don't want to adopt masculine attitudes because they don't want to be assholes
As a man, I find this kind of offensive. As though the essence of masculinity resides in being an asshole. I have more thoughts, but I don't wish to derail the thread.
Like water off a duck's back
Are you saying I missed the point,
@Ian Plätschisch? Or are you implying that I'm being an asshole for disagreeing with the premise that masculine = asshole? I thought I understood, and I don't see how I'm being an asshole. If you don't mind, please PM me and explain what I'm missing. Like I said, I don't want to derail the thread, but I do want to understand.
Hmm, there must be another meaning to that idiom that I didn't realize.
I was not saying you missed the point, I was saying that you should not let claims like that upset you in any way. The people that make them are so obviously wrong that they don't deserve any of your brain space.
Sorry for the confusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen
I'll just leave this here.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 13, 2023, 02:24:47 PMHmm, there must be another meaning to that idiom that I didn't realize.
I was not saying you missed the point, I was saying that you should not let claims like that upset you in any way. The people that make them are so obviously wrong that they don't deserve any of your brain space.
Sorry for the confusion.
Ohhhhhhh thanks for the clarification, now I feel silly ;D
I know that meaning, but I've also heard it used to say someone is missing the point. Similar to the phrase "it went over their head". I'm also sorry for the confusion :)
Quote from: Viteu on February 13, 2023, 02:30:35 PMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen
I'll just leave this here.
I'm not exactly sure what your meaning is here, but if it is to say that I am engaging in such behavior, I am actually
doing the exact opposite rejecting the entire premise
This entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.
Quote from: Viteu on February 13, 2023, 03:21:05 PMThis entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.
1. My offense isn't manufactured just as, I assume, your offense at "gay erasure" isn't manufactured.
2. Taking offense is not the same as being outraged. Words have meanings.
Quote from: Viteu on February 13, 2023, 03:21:05 PMThis entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.
My advice was to
not be "outraged" about this, but if someone was, I don't think they'd be manufacturing anything. There are an abundance of examples of it happening, but again, they are of no importance.
Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on February 13, 2023, 03:26:48 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 13, 2023, 03:21:05 PMThis entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.
1. My offense isn't manufactured just as, I assume, your offense at "gay erasure" isn't manufactured.
2. Taking offense is not the same as being outraged. Words have meanings.
1. oooookkkkaaayyy #NotAllMen
2. Kewl.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 13, 2023, 03:29:19 PMQuote from: Viteu on February 13, 2023, 03:21:05 PMThis entire manufactured outrage of someone equating being an a*sh*le with masculinity sounds pretty #NotAllMen to me.
My advice was to not be "outraged" about this, but if someone was, I don't think they'd be manufacturing anything. There are an abundance of examples of it happening, but again, they are of no importance.
If it doesn't apply to you as you might presuppose, then why are you responding?
Gentlemen,
This is a hopper thread and discussion about a bill under consideration. Please keep the discussion on that topic. The last few posts threaten to derail the thread.
I can't precisely recollect where the discussion went before the first data loss, but in the coming days I'll update the proposal.
Quote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 08, 2023, 06:06:48 PMI can't precisely recollect where the discussion went before the first data loss, but in the coming days I'll update the proposal.
Are you planning on submitting this for the second Clark?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 15, 2023, 09:14:58 PMQuote from: Üc R. Tärfâ on March 08, 2023, 06:06:48 PMI can't precisely recollect where the discussion went before the first data loss, but in the coming days I'll update the proposal.
Are you planning on submitting this for the second Clark?
Not sure, possibly third Clark.
Update just to be clear: I will follow on this Bill the same "waiting period" I asked on this other (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg18519#msg18519) bill.