WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and

WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and

WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and

WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,

THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

Quote10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and

WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and

WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and

WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,

THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

Quote10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 15, 2023, 08:24:36 PMWHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and

WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and

WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and

WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,

THEREFORE the ninth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

Quote9. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

Just making sure we move on these. Baron this one looks ripe for clarking as well.

Approve.  Clark it

(I asked the Baron in the Hopper to delay this bill until the 3rd Clark, and he agreed).

Going to make this part of my greater Legal Repair Act again.

EDIT: Never mind!  Going ahead with this one, as approved.

And out of abundance of caution, the correct text is the one that amends A.9, not A.10, correct?

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2023, 01:44:37 PMAnd out of abundance of caution, the correct text is the one that amends A.9, not A.10, correct?

Isn't it A.10? I thought it was.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2023, 05:30:47 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 23, 2023, 01:44:37 PMAnd out of abundance of caution, the correct text is the one that amends A.9, not A.10, correct?

Isn't it A.10? I thought it was.

Apologies, got confused by the Seneschal posting a different version of the text and assumed it was a final draft.

Having cleared that up, I see no issues with the bill.