Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 13, 2016 8:36:04 GMT -6
The Covenants only says: Talossa shall never tax nor purport to tax, unduly burden, outlaw or abridge for its citizens any right to acts of [...] religious worship or affiliation. Limitations can be organically established by law unless they "unduly burden" "abridge" or "outlaw" the internal organization: there's neither a prohibition on "limits" (they aren't necessarily limits, they could be simply rules put in the interest of our citizens or for all organisations) nor an absolute freedom to organise themselves as they want.ù We are simply saying "you have to respect the law of the Kingdom". That's not a redundancy. With respect, writing a law that says you have to respect other laws is a redundancy. You quoted the Eighth Covenant which states "Talossa shall never... abridge for its citizens any right to acts of...religious worship or affiliation." The First Covenant states " No law shall exist abridging the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression..." Abridge: "To lessen the strength or effect of (something, such as a right)" We are talking about Religious organizations are subject to their own rules and procedures, within the limits of the law. The meaning is: if the law requires every talossan organization to have a bank account (in an exemple of course), then also religious organizations should have it. They can't say "we are subject only to our own rules". We are not talking about laws that limits the freedom of religion. This is not a law saying that you have to respect other laws: it's a law saying that there's not an absolute freedom for religious organizations to be subject only to their own rules and procedures. It's a (necessary) cautionary clause.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 13, 2016 9:56:45 GMT -6
With respect, writing a law that says you have to respect other laws is a redundancy. You quoted the Eighth Covenant which states "Talossa shall never... abridge for its citizens any right to acts of...religious worship or affiliation." The First Covenant states " No law shall exist abridging the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression..." Abridge: "To lessen the strength or effect of (something, such as a right)" We are talking about Religious organizations are subject to their own rules and procedures, within the limits of the law. The meaning is: if the law requires every talossan organization to have a bank account (in an exemple of course), then also religious organizations should have it. They can't say "we are subject only to our own rules". We are not talking about laws that limits the freedom of religion. This is not a law saying that you have to respect other laws: it's a law saying that there's not an absolute freedom for religious organizations to be subject only to their own rules and procedures. It's a (necessary) cautionary clause. All organizations are subject to their own rules and procedures, but their rules do not trump the law. This is common sense, and we don't need to spell it out elsewhere in the law. Let's be clear, we are talking about adding language to this section on religious organizations that no other organization or corporation in Talossa has. There is nothing that redundantly points out, for example, that the bylaws of corporations registered in Talossa must operate within the limits of Talossan law. Nor is there anything elsewhere regarding any other corporation; the only thing that comes close is Lex.C.7, which allows His Majesty to issue charters to organizations within the Kingdom that would allow such organizations to use the Talossan name and image "in accordance with the law". Adding the phrase "within the limits of law" is stigmatizing religious organizations, and could very well be seen as limiting their freedom. Furthermore, there is an absolute freedom for religious organizations, like any organization, to be bound to their own rules and procedures, subject to the provisions already outlined in the Third Covenant: But, okay, let's say that this law doesn't limit the freedom of religion. What does it do then? What "law" or laws limit the religion from being subject to their own rules, other than what is in Organic Law, something that is superior to anything we put in our statutes? What "boundaries" does this law place on religious organizations, other than to stigmatize them and to invite further tweaking and limiting within statutory law by this and future Zius (not that anything would hold up in Cort)?
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on May 18, 2016 7:38:12 GMT -6
I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that if a religion required (for example) female children of over five years to undergo FGM, then we might want to outlaw that practice. Religious freedom ends where bodily harm starts. That’s that; just like freedom from seizure and imprisonment ends, as soon as you harm somebody (and it is proven).
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 18, 2016 7:45:44 GMT -6
I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that if a religion required (for example) female children of over five years to undergo FGM, then we might want to outlaw that practice. Religious freedom ends where bodily harm starts. That’s that; just like freedom from seizure and imprisonment ends, as soon as you harm somebody (and it is proven). Third Covenant: Sixth Covenant:
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 18, 2016 8:05:23 GMT -6
What if "within the limits of the law" was changed to "with respect to the 3rd and 6th covenants"?
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 18, 2016 19:29:30 GMT -6
What if "within the limits of the law" was changed to "with respect to the 3rd and 6th covenants"? That wouldn't be ideal either, because Organic Law is always superior to statutory law, so it would still be redundant. Plus, the 3rd covenant is very clear about the unabridged right to freely associate within organizations subject to their own laws of membership, so this phrase would almost still seem contradictory to the Third Covenant, despite it referencing the Third Covenant.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on May 18, 2016 21:15:10 GMT -6
What if "within the limits of the law" was changed to "with respect to the 3rd and 6th covenants"? That wouldn't be ideal either, because Organic Law is always superior to statutory law, so it would still be redundant. Plus, the 3rd covenant is very clear about the unabridged right to freely associate within organizations subject to their own laws of membership, so this phrase would almost still seem contradictory to the Third Covenant, despite it referencing the Third Covenant. The purpose of this law is certainly not to restrict religious freedom; it is to prevent abuse. And the best way to do that is to make it abundantly clear that religious organizations have to respect human rights. Neither the 3rd nor 6th covenant explicitly mentions religious groups, so it would be beneficial to reference them in A.13. Besides, such a reference would also serve to guarantee the rights of religious groups granted by these Covenants, in case anyone ever tried to restrict it (because, again, the 3rd and 6th covenants do not explicitly mention religious groups).
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 19, 2016 9:13:38 GMT -6
That wouldn't be ideal either, because Organic Law is always superior to statutory law, so it would still be redundant. Plus, the 3rd covenant is very clear about the unabridged right to freely associate within organizations subject to their own laws of membership, so this phrase would almost still seem contradictory to the Third Covenant, despite it referencing the Third Covenant. The purpose of this law is certainly not to restrict religious freedom; it is to prevent abuse. And the best way to do that is to make it abundantly clear that religious organizations have to respect human rights. Neither the 3rd nor 6th covenant explicitly mentions religious groups, so it would be beneficial to reference them in A.13. Besides, such a reference would also serve to guarantee the rights of religious groups granted by these Covenants, in case anyone ever tried to restrict it (because, again, the 3rd and 6th covenants do not explicitly mention religious groups).
The Third and Sixth Covenants do not explicitly mention religious groups because they are designed to protect the rights of every person and organization whether they be religious or not. If we're going to make a law that says religious organizations need to respect the Third and Sixth Covenants, why aren't we making a law saying political parties need to as well? What about non-profits, businesses, or newspapers, too? (Those editors can really get you if you miss deadlines sometimes, take if from me!) There is no need to have a law that says religious groups need to respect the law, especially when we don't have similar "laws" for other types of organizations and groups.
|
|
Üc R. Tärfâ
Talossan since 3-8-2005
Deputy Fiôván Secretary of State
Posts: 760
|
Post by Üc R. Tärfâ on May 21, 2016 0:56:39 GMT -6
I don't really get this problem with that sentence "within the limits of the law" which is in my view the most normal provision in a rechtsstaat, because "my freedom ends when yours starts".
Also, I don't get this american worries about "every single shade of religious freedom", probably because I'm not american.
"Religious organisations are free to organise themselves within the limits of the law."
For me that sentence is the greatest freedom a state can give to an organisation. "Apart from what I necessarily provide, you are free to do what you want"...
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on May 21, 2016 7:07:37 GMT -6
"Within the limits of law" is a redundant statement no matter where it is, and it is especially redundant in statutory law. First, there are no limits in statutory law, with the exception of clause A.13.3 that states that law may limit religious freedom if it is "unavoidable" (and spells out specific reasons), and Organic Law is quite clear that there can be no limits, just a simple exception that states that organizations cannot prevent others from freely exercising their rights under the Covenants. (That makes sense for any organization, group, or anything else.) We don't need a phrase in statutory law that does not point to any other statutory law section--because no other section, other than the one that says unavoidable limits already can be passed if necessary, exists--and we certainly don't need something that refers to rights already protected by OrgLaw.
What we are debating here does not change what Organic Law already says. It just adds a redundant phrase to a section of statutory law that doesn't have any value to begin with, except that this would be the only place in statutory law where this vague phrase exists. There aren't any sections of Lex that say that "businesses have the right to have their own bylaws, within the limits of law", which we passed to "prevent abuse". No, only here, when discussing the rights of religious organizations we must specifically spell out the fact that they can't abuse people, even though the Covenants already say they can't.
I'm not religious in the slightest. But I can recognize when a law is both unnecessary and discriminatory. The phrase does not recognize the greatest freedom the State can give to an organization, but instead points out that whatever the individual does whether by himself or with others, the State can step in and take away or change the freedoms they were exercising. There are no basically no limits to a religious organization's right to organize, yet this law implies both that there are many, and that the State may pass more limits in the form of statutes whenever they wish...but only for religious organizations, because any other organization, according to statutory law, must be free to abuse their group members however they see fit.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jun 23, 2016 19:35:06 GMT -6
As the "within the limits of the law" seems to have made this bill fail, I have removed it and intend to Clark it again
|
|