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.