[CRL] The Freedom of Conscience Act

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.