WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles, as opposed to strongmen and personalities; andWHEREAS, swearing allegiance to a government appears to conflict with a citizen's Organic right to free expression; andWHEREAS, swearing allegiance to the nation's constitution is more in line with the ideals of liberal democracy; thenBE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZIU that Title E, Section 9 of El Lexhatx, which currently reads:
Quote9. The following text shall be known as The Oath of Talossan Citizenship:
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to His Majesty's government. I solemnly affirm that I will support and uphold the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, defend the realm against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, faithfully observe its laws, respect the rights and freedoms of all my fellow citizens, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa, and humbly appreciate the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency.
shall be replaced in full with:
Quote9. The following text shall be known as The Oath of Talossan Citizenship:
From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to its Organic Law. I solemnly affirm that I will respect the rights and freedoms of all my fellow citizens, faithfully observe the nation's laws, defend the realm against all enemies both foreign and domestic, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa, and humbly appreciate the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency.
Ureu q'estadra så,
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC-URL)
Before addressing the merits of the bill, I have to note that it seems to be implying that His Majesty is a "strongman." I assume that's just inelegant phrasing, but it's probably something you want to fix.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 05, 2026, 08:10:43 AMBefore addressing the merits of the bill, I have to note that it seems to be implying that His Majesty is a "strongman." I assume that's just inelegant phrasing, but it's probably something you want to fix.
I had the same thought when I read the bill.
I will note that I was a co-sponsor of the bill in the 44th Cosa that changed the original wording of the oath removing the words "to her sovereign king" and the word "pious" (as in pious fidelity).
I'd also like to hear how the current oath conflicts with organic rights.
Strongman...sure.
-Txec R
You are very thoughtful about how you use your power, always respecting the democratic processes, so I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it that way.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on February 05, 2026, 08:44:38 AMYou are very thoughtful about how you use your power, always respecting the democratic processes, so I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it that way.
No doubt. I am still curious how the current language conflicts with organic rights of citizens.
-Txec R
May I first assure His Majesty I wasn't referring to him. He's by far and away the most impartial and constitutional monarch we've yet had. I was happy to vote in favor of his becoming Heir Presumptive during the referendum on the issue, and would say the nation's trust in him has been rewarded so far.
"...loyalty, allegiance, and fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa and to His Majesty's government" calls into question whether those swearing the oath of citizenship are being required to waive their right to disagree with the government of the day. Are they to be compelled to agree with the government instead? Compelled speech is generally held as conflicting with the right to free expression -- a right Talossans are supposed to be able to enjoy under the protections of the First Covenant.
It would be very difficult to argue that compelling allegiance to the government would be covered under the "public order or morals" exception.
Even if we look at this clause as generously as possible, in the sense of "some people have lawful authority to decide things for the country, respect it", it would also be difficult to argue that under such an interpretation, compelling allegiance to the government is not better served by having the oath-taker swear to follow the nation's laws. Since the oath already does this, it renders allegiance to the government superfluous (assuming that the government is itself respecting the law).
I'm open to some version of this, personally, but I absolutely will not vote for this version. The very obvious implication is that it's referring to His Majesty as a "strongman," and even though it's reassuring to hear that this is an accident, I'm still not going to vote for it in its current form.
I personally support this legislation and will vote for it. Can't speak for all Green Party MCs but if there is internal debate on the legislation I will speak in support.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 06, 2026, 10:42:40 AMI personally support this legislation and will vote for it. Can't speak for all Green Party MCs but if there is internal debate on the legislation I will speak in support.
Reiterating my support for this. Hope it will go forward soon.
I have already stated that this bill does not refer to His Majesty. I'm not sure which language it needs to be stated in to get the point across.
I intend to place this on the Fourth Clark. The Government can vote to retain Orwellian practice if they wish.
It seems strange to insist on including insulting language, even if it's unintentionally insulting.
Seems peculiar for something called the "Freedom of Conscience" act...usually that pertains to religious affairs within the state...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on March 22, 2026, 07:51:33 PMI'm not sure which language it needs to be stated in to get the point across.
I would vote for it also if you just suppress the 'as opposed to strongmen and personalities' because the point of this law is not this.
@Sir Lüc , please move this bill to the CRL.
So done.
I don't think anybody objects to the change of the content of the oath, but I see that Mic'haglh insists on keeping unrelated Whereas clauses which aim at delivering some political messages.. Any opponent to these messages has already been qualified as Orwellian. Smart, isn't it ?
Orwellian implies "draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation, and denial of truth." I fail to see how the current Oath is any of those things. You think OUR oath is "Orwellian" you should check out the United Kingdom's oath.
-Txec R
He was quoting Mic'haglh, I believe, who called the current oath an "Orwellian practice."
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2026, 04:28:40 PMHe was quoting Mic'haglh, I believe, who called the current oath an "Orwellian practice."
Yes, I knew that.
-Txec R
Just a quick reminder that the Seneschal is standing in for the vacant A-X seat on the Committee, pursuant to Lexh.D.2.1.
The text of the bill is mostly fine, but one of the whereas clauses has the clear implication that His Majesty is a strongman. Since the bill's sponsor says that isn't what he means to say, I'd recommend removing that clause.
I'm going to give the Government the benefit of the doubt here for a second and discuss this under the assumption that their issue with this bill is based on an appallingly-severe lack of reading comprehension, as opposed to the sort of blatant misrepresentation that has become common on their part. So let me start at the beginning.
His Majesty is a constitutional monarch. He is by leaps and bounds the most scrupulous monarch this country has ever had when it comes to respecting his constitutional boundaries and duties. I do not believe he is a strongman.
Constitutional monarchs "reign, but do not rule", as the saying goes. Consequently, since I believe he respects his role, I do not believe HM "rules" over Talossa at all, in a strongman fashion or otherwise. (Though in the colloquial complimentary sense, I would absolutely agree that he "rules".)
It is baffling to me that someone could read this bill, see that it removes the reference to His Majesty's government from the oath of citizenship, and honestly conclude that the bill says His Majesty is the one guilty of strongman tactics.
Frankly, the fact that the current Government is hellbent on keeping new citizens bending the knee to them is all the more argument in favor of the bill's value. Instead of saying "yes, condemning autocracy and removing parts of Talossan law that smell of it, however small they may be, is something we are on board with", they decry this bill's pro-liberty values as inappropriate for legislation; "some political message". Where, exactly, is political messaging more appropriate than the nation's legislature?
I think we're both in perfect agreement that His Majesty is not a strongman. And you already have made it clear that you didn't mean to suggest otherwise. But several people, including His Majesty, reached a different conclusion when they first read the bill. This is probably because of the nature of the phrase "His Majesty's Government." The literal meaning can be different from what a casual reader might understand.
My preference would be for you to fix the wording of the whereas clause in question, so that it more clearly expresses your meaning. It's a problem with the form of the bill that the wording doesn't match your intent. That's the only concern I have, since otherwise the bill is fine in form and function. I will reserve my CRL vote for now.
I do not think the CRL has the mandate to hold up a bill over a preamble which does not impact the bill's function.
The CRL is directed to "suggest amendments in their best judgment" about such matters as the "correctness of the language." A bill that unintentionally seems to people to possibly be insulting the king definitely has a problem with its language!
I have never voted against sending a bill out of committee just because I thought it was a bad idea, and I'm not starting now -- but I do think it's a problem if there's a clause that's confusing enough that multiple people misinterpreted it. The bill is unclear in its form, though the function is correct. Bills should not be written so confusingly that multiple people misinterpret a clause as an insult.
I mean, right now the whereas clause says, "WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles, as opposed to strongmen and personalities."
Why not just change it to, "WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles" ? Nothing about the effect of the bill would change. I'm surprised this is even a point of contention.
I think the only reason the Whereas will not be changed is to be able to give false assertions such as :
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 29, 2026, 11:19:17 PMFrankly, the fact that the current Government is hellbent on keeping new citizens bending the knee to them is all the more argument in favor of the bill's value
Why not also add 'Whereas the current Government insists on having new citizens knee to them' ? If the Government opposes this insulting whereas, it will also confirm the bill's value, according to such reasoning
So if the Government members think that the non-operative preamble to a bill "insults" them in a particular way, the Ziu should not be allowed to consider the bill?
I'm honestly not really clear here at this point... is that bit of the preamble supposed to be a dig at the Government? If so, then it would make more sense to be clear about that. I thought it was a generic statement about philosophical opposition to strongmen in politics, which seems fine to me but poorly expressed.
Just to be clear, here are circumstances under which I will vote a bill out of committee:
- The bill proposes to do something that I think is wrong and dumb.
- The bill directly insults me, personally.
- The bill directly insults His Majesty.
All of those are fine! The CRL shouldn't care if a bill is insulting someone. It's not an etiquette committee. The problem is that it's unclear and seems to be
accidentally insulting someone.
There's really only a few reasons to hold up a bill:
- It's inorganic.
- It's got mistakes that interfere with its function, and so it won't do what the author intends.
- It's got mistakes that interfere with its form, and so it accidentally seems to be saying something unintended.
If the issue is that this is supposed to be a devastating dig at me, just clarify it so that it's not easily misinterpreted, and the issue will be resolved.