49th Cosa, Third Clark Discussion Thread

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Senators, please use this thread to discuss the Third Clark of the 49th:

49RZ9 - The Updating A.12 Act
49RZ10 - Following the Law is not a Suggestion Act
49RZ11 - Following the Law is not a Suggestion Act II
49RZ12 - The Boundaries of Religious Freedom Act
49RZ13 - The man who can't be moved act
49RZ14 - SENSE OF THE ZIU: GENDER EQUALITY
49RZ15 - RCOR Extension Act
49RZ16 - The right to vote in time act

The text of the bills in question can be found on the Talossan Database System here.

[Lüc da Schir]

Well, no problems with 9, 10, 11, 12, 14. I plan on voting PËR.

On RZ13, I do not think the bill is inOrganic anymore, and I don't see how it could be seeing that it merely reaffirms what OrgLaw XVII.3 says. I would be interested to hear what MC Valcadac'h has to say in regard, but as of today this bill has my full support.

I am not particularly amazed at RZ15. I don't want to pin the blame on anyone (or any party) in particular, regarding the supersonic speed of the RCOR, but July 1st was supposed to be more than enough. AUS/CON.

RZ16 is an amendment I could get behind, but I have to begrudgingly accept that we should really wait for the RCOR to finish its work before clarking amendments. Probably AUS.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I'm strongly opposed to the passage of 49RZ12, The Boundaries of Religious Freedom Act, and would encourage my colleagues here in the Senäts to join me in voting it down.

My thoughts on the bill have previously been made known in the hopper thread for the bill, but in short, adding the phrase "within the limits of the law" when there are little to no actual limits is not only unnecessary, but it is discriminatory as this would be the first time such a phrase is included in our statutes. We don't require any other organization to operate "within the limits of the law", which is something that they would be doing anyway, yet we make it a point to spell out this scarlet phrase when we discuss religious organizations.

Indeed, the WHEREAS sections of the bill go into some detail about the reasons for this amendment. I highlight one in particular:

WHEREAS Most religious activities are already protected by A.13.3, so we don't need a provision which gives religious authorities an excuse to contravene the laws of the Kingdom

I find it both odd and amusing that the author of this bill points to A.13.3, which is a statutory provision that spells out the limited circumstances in which religious activities may be limited by law. Notwithstanding the fact that it would be completely obvious to anyone reading A.13 that there would be some limiting situations without the need to reiterate "within the limits of law" in A.13.2, I would argue that any limits to a religious organization's right to operate under their own guidelines must meet the extremely strict requirements set out by the Third Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, which reads as follows:

Talossans have the right to peaceful assembly whether in private facilities or in the open air, provided that such assembly neither disrupts traffic or legal commercial activity, or unduly inconveniences people. Talossans have the right to freely organize political parties and other organizations, subject to their own laws of membership, and this right may not be abridged except with regards to organizations which advocate the use of violence or intimidation to attain political or other ends, or which seek to restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants.

(Emphasis mine.)

Thus, the notion that the Ziu can apply any statutory limits to any organization's bylaws, whether it be a religious group or a for-profit corporation, is a false one. We are all protected by the Covenants, and we don't need a clause in statutory law to protect our right to liberty, which the Sixth Covenant states is "any action not detrimental to others..." We also shouldn't pass these types of scarlet letter bills which do nothing more than create a perception that our liberties can be limited by statutory law, which simply isn't true.

I would again urge my colleagues here in this chamber to vote against the aptly named "Boundaries of Religious Freedom Act".