Parliamentary Statement about 61RZ13 et 61RZ17

[mximo]

Parliamentary Statement on the Integrity of Lawmaking and the Limits of Legislative Power

Honourable members of the Ziu,

We rise today to express grave concern regarding the proposed legislation entitled *Sense of the Ziu: A First Step Towards Decency* and *Sense of the Ziu: Moving forward without rough music. While the intent behind this proposal may appear noble at first glance, the underlying structure and implications of this bill run contrary to the most foundational principles of law, justice, and parliamentary responsibility.

It is a fundamental tenet of any democratic and constitutional system that Parliament must never craft legislation aimed at a specific individual. Laws must be general in nature, abstract in formulation, and universal in application. The moment a legislature uses its power to single out a citizen—whether explicitly or by unmistakable implication—it abandons its role as the steward of the common good and becomes an instrument of arbitrariness.

Let us be clear: the role of Parliament is not to discipline individuals. It is not to replace the judiciary. It is to legislate in a manner that protects the institutional order, serves the public interest, and upholds the rule of law.

No law should purport to solve one legal issue by creating another. *Sense of the Ziu* does precisely this: it seeks to address alleged misconduct through legislative means, thereby creating a precedent that endangers the impartiality of governance and the separation of powers. Such an approach risks transforming Parliament into a tribunal, and legislation into punishment. This is not decency. It is legislative overreach.

To those who have experienced harassment, abuse, or other forms of harm, we say this: the courts are open to you. The judiciary, independent and impartial, is the proper forum to hear such claims, weigh evidence, and render judgment in accordance with the law. Parliament must never pre-empt this process. It must never constrain the ability of judges to exercise their discretion freely and fully, in accordance with the facts and the rights of all parties.

If we permit ourselves to legislate against persons, rather than conduct; if we abandon due process in favour of political expediency; if we allow moral panic to dictate legal form—we will not be taking a first step toward decency, but a definitive step away from justice.

We therefore call upon all members of the Ziu, in the name of constitutional order, due process, and civic dignity, to immediately withdraw this legislation. Let us reaffirm our commitment to impartial governance and to the principle that the law must be above persons, and never against them.

I do not know the facts of the case, nor do I claim to know who is right or wrong. I place my trust in the courts to determine that. However, 61RZ13 and 61RZ17 sets a precedent that compels me to speak out.

For this reason, I will abstain on both this resolution and I urge anyone who believes they are a victim of harassment to file a formal complaint with the proper authorities outside Talossa if necessary.

I neither have the competence nor the desire to act as judge or prosecutor in a civil or a possible criminal matter. Neither should you.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Mximo Carbonèl
Senator from Florencia

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think if I ever wrote a long speech about a case, and included the sentence, "I do not know the facts of the case," I might pause.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Senator Carbonel actually wrote to me to ask me about the facts of the case a few months ago, so it's not as if he's unwillingly ignorant

[mximo]

I dont know if it's true I only get your version.

Your version is always the true ? I should follow you blindly ?

But like I said Im no judge or policeman either are you.

Go to the police if something wrong happen.


Mximo