The Keeping the Far More Progressive Law Progressive Bill

[Üc R. Tärfă]

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clause" could be paradoxically felt nowadays discriminatory with its only references to "gay" and "sexuality", and outdated language as "sexual identification";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:

10. 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. Below follows the original text:

10. 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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?

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

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:

10. 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.

[Ian Plätschisch]

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:

10. 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.

[Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat]

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:

10. 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.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

is 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

All 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.

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?

I see what you mean. What about this reformulation?

10. 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.

[Viteu]

Feels more like gay erasure, but okay.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Feels more like gay erasure, but okay.

@Üc R. Tärfâ , maybe this is a valid point.  What do you think?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Feels more like gay erasure, but okay.

From a strictly LGBTQ+ point a view, this is rather a large expansion.

This brief excerpt is significant:

Gay 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.

[Sir Lüc]

Feels more like gay erasure, but okay.

From a strictly LGBTQ+ point a view, this is rather a large expansion.

This brief excerpt is significant:

Gay 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.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

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.

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 (7 years ago) and the 8th covenant (11th years ago) here and here... I might be obsessed but least I'm coherent :D

[Viteu]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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?

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.

[Viteu]

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?"

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.