|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 23, 2018 16:19:34 GMT -6
The Provincial Depiction Right of Determination Act
WHEREAS, The First Covenant of Rights and Freedoms states, “No law shall exist abridging the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,” and
WHEREAS, Organic Law Article XVII, Section 6, point 17 explicitly states that the Ziu is not authorized to determine the “symbols, flags, heraldry, anthems, cultural events, and other like things” of individual Provinces, and
WHEREAS, Organic Law Article XVII, Section 8 states that “All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces,” and
WHEREAS, in recent years some private individuals have taken it upon themselves to assign provinces colors for the purposes of reporting on or analyzing the results of elections, and
WHEREAS, opinions over which color is most appropriate to represent a given province can vary significantly, occasionally leading to quite public disagreements, and
WHEREAS, these disagreements between private individuals are all in good fun and ultimately do not require any one individual to change their depicted representation of any province, and
WHEREAS, these matters are most appropriately handled in private disagreements among individuals and should never determine any official government policy, and
WHEREAS, Glüc da Dhi was appointed as Secretary of State on May 22, 2018, and
WHEREAS, during the Election for the 52nd Cosa, Secretary da Dhi suggested on a Talossan chatroom that it was the official policy of the Chancery that certain provinces be represented by certain colors, and
WHEREAS, Secretary da Dhi was aware that several individuals disagreed with his color determinations prior to his creation of such official policy, and
WHEREAS, Secretary da Dhi further ominously stated that “Dissent will not be tolerated,” and
WHEREAS, on August 13th, 2018 Seneschal Ian Plätschisch issued 52PD1 at the urging of Secretary da Dhi, declaring the day “shall be #KARED Day, on which we celebrate that the correct colour denoting the province of Atatürk is red,” and
WHEREAS, King John assented to 52PD1 on August 23rd, 2018 giving it the full force of law, and
WHEREAS, no government should make laws suggesting that any one opinion or expression is the “correct” one, or by extension declare that all other opinions or expressions in such category is “incorrect”, and further
WHEREAS, the right of a province to self determine their symbols and cultural dicta is expressly reserved by Organic Law to the provinces individually,
THEREFORE, the Ziu hereby repeals in full 52PD1, and
FURTHER, the Ziu amends Lex.F to add the following:
Noi urent q’estadra så: Munditenens Tresplet (MC-FreeDems, Péngöpäts) Lüc da Schir (Senator, BE)
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 23, 2018 16:22:09 GMT -6
I would ask that Seneschal Ian Plätschisch approve this bill for consideration in the September Clark.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 26, 2018 20:21:42 GMT -6
I would ask that Seneschal Ian Plätschisch approve this bill for consideration in the September Clark. Err...no
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 27, 2018 10:07:53 GMT -6
I would ask that Seneschal Ian Plätschisch approve this bill for consideration in the September Clark. Err...no Knowing my intention to repeal 52PD1 for weeks, it is disappointing that our government would refuse to allow the repeal bill to move forward for an immediate vote. I Hoppered this bill immediately following 52PD1 coming into effect when the King countersigned it, three days too late for consideration in the September Clark without the Seneschal exercising their powers. The 10 day period in the Hopper is to encourage debate, and the debate on this inOrganic and controversial PD has been going on for weeks. I would further note that no one has debated the merits of this bill itself within the Hopper since its introduction. (Meanwhile, the government has introduced the budget mere days before the September Clark opens and the bill is expected to be pushed into it to comply with the Organic requirement.) I will therefore introduce this bill in the October Clark, where I hope the legislature will judge this bill on its merits and vote accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 27, 2018 14:04:37 GMT -6
Yeah, that appears as kinda poor form. Could the Seneschal give his reasons as to why he is denying the Ziu a vote on this in the next Clark? Surely he hasn't just said 'er no' because he would vote no on it.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Aug 27, 2018 15:49:32 GMT -6
Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but I am under the impression that the Seneschal's power in this regard should be used sparingly. Yes, I will be using the power to make sure the budget receives a vote on schedule (as have most of my recent predecessors), but that is because I am under an Organic requirement and writing the budget took longer than I had hoped. Using the power to force a vote on this legislation concerning an ephemeral holiday seems to me inappropriate.
It is not as though I am denying anyone anything; the author easily could have Hoppered the bill before the standard deadline anticipating the King's countersignature of 52PD1.
Finally, I will not undermine my own program to update our websites by taking special measures to repeal one of the associated Prime Dictates. What kind of message would that send to potential future participants?
Regarding the merits of the bill, the original announcement of the program and the offending Prime Dictate make it clear that the Day of Observance is based on a particular individual's inclinations and not the official position of the government. Therefore, the accusations that the Dictate is inOrganic are completely uncompelling.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 27, 2018 16:46:22 GMT -6
EDIT: Glüc da Dhi deleted ("accidentally" lol) what I posted to start with, so what follows is more or less what I posted originally. Regarding the merits of the bill, the original announcement of the program and the offending Prime Dictate make it clear that the Day of Observance is based on a particular individual's inclinations and not the official position of the government. Therefore, the accusations that the Dictate is inOrganic are completely uncompelling. Prime Dictates become the law of the Kingdom following countersignature by the King, regardless of who wrote them or why they were written. Unlike PD2 and PD3, 52PD1 goes beyond creating a day of observance by stating the "correct" color of a province is, by law, red. As the Kingdom is expressly forbidden by Org.XVII.6.17 from determining the cultural dicta of individual provinces, a category that the symbolic color of a province certainly falls into, 52PD1 is inOrganic.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 27, 2018 17:07:57 GMT -6
CR*P, I used the edit function rather than quote (they are located next to each other). Still getting used to this. SORRY SORRY I APOLOGISE. Will fix it immediately. Edit: aah, nope I cannot actually fix it because I threw everything away except that quote. Munditenens Tresplet, I'm afraid you'll have to rewrite the above post, because I accidentally ruined it. I'm going to stand in the corner and think about my actions now.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 27, 2018 17:24:51 GMT -6
CR*P, I used the edit function rather than quote (they are located next to each other). Still getting used to this. SORRY SORRY I APOLOGISE. Will fix it immediately. Edit: aah, nope I cannot actually fix it because I threw everything away except that quote. Munditenens Tresplet, I'm afraid you'll have to rewrite the above post, because I accidentally ruined it. I'm going to stand in the corner and think about my actions now. Is this what you mean by dissent will not be tolerated?!
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 27, 2018 17:55:20 GMT -6
EDIT: Glüc da Dhi deleted ("accidentally" lol) what I posted to start with, so what follows is more or less what I posted originally. Yup, I did that. Sorry. I think the bill is missing the point of the original discussion, which is NOT about the official colours of provinces. It is (or at least it used to be) a discussion about how to best visualise provinces in graphs (e.g. turnout statistics). This is limited by very different constraints than official provincial coulours. For example, a province can have no official colour (there is no inherent need for this), but you cannot leave out a single province in a graph. A province can also have multiple official colours, but that wouldn't work in most graphs either. Much more relevant though, two provinces can have the same official colour, but using the same colour to denote two provinces in a graph muddies the whole thing. The way to denote a province in a graph CANNOT be part of a provinces cultural individual dicta, because it is limited by constraints other than the provinces own choice (namely the colour used to denote all the other provinces. (Also, I don't the PD actually should be interpreted as stating the correct way is red, rather than describing the day as celebrating the correct way. You can celebrate something without it necessarily being true, even though it obviously is true in this case #KARED. Anyway, that particular line was provided by me as a description of the day I was entitled to, not by the government itself.)
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Aug 27, 2018 18:13:51 GMT -6
As the Kingdom is expressly forbidden by Org.XVII.6.17 from determining the cultural dicta of individual provinces, a category that the symbolic color of a province certainly falls into, 52PD1 is inOrganic. I think the bill is missing the point of the original discussion, which is NOT about the official colours of provinces. It is (or at least it used to be) a discussion about how to best visualise provinces in graphs (e.g. turnout statistics). This is limited by very different constraints than official provincial coulours. For example, a province can have no official colour (there is no inherent need for this), but you cannot leave out a single province in a graph. A province can also have multiple official colours, but that wouldn't work in most graphs either. Much more relevant though, two provinces can have the same official colour, but using the same colour to denote two provinces in a graph muddies the whole thing. The way to denote a province in a graph CANNOT be part of a provinces cultural individual dicta, because it is limited by constraints other than the provinces own choice (namely the colour used to denote all the other provinces. (Also, I don't the PD actually should be interpreted as stating the correct way is red, rather than describing the day as celebrating the correct way. You can celebrate something without it necessarily being true, even though it obviously is true in this case #KARED. Anyway, that particular line was provided by me as a description of the day I was entitled to, not by the government itself.) I am glad you brought out the original discussion as to where this color thing came from; I believe that many never fully understood how it came to be. If you recall, you were stuck on what color to use for Atatürk, and I suggested that the color red would be too overwhelming for the graph, hence why I preferred (and continue to prefer) the color yellow. Yet while the origins of the color war (for which there should be an article on TalossaWiki) are important, I believe that the use of the color has expanded far beyond turnout graphs. As evidence, simply see how August 13th was celebrated by many in the "red" camp, and the proposal in the Atatürk legislature to accede to the PD and adopt the official color of red specifically as opposed to yellow. Even if its origins were in something as simple as turnout graphs, the discussion on color has moved squarely into the realm of symbolic depictions of provinces. I am undeterred in my view that 52PD1 clearly enshrines into law that one color is the "correct" color for a province and violates Org.XVII. I am nonetheless open to amending this bill to amend the PD rather than repeal it entirely, to read as follows:
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Oct 14, 2018 9:41:02 GMT -6
I rise to address two arguments raised against this bill on provincial boards, rather than made within this thread. There is a common theme among those who oppose this legislation, that being the PD does nothing. Or rather, the PD is extremely limited in scope which only creates an ephemeral day of celebration, and does not set policy or law in anyway. Although this argument has been address numerous times, it doesn't appear as though the opposition's argument changes at all. But alas, I will address it here once more. On the one hand, we are told that while the PD does nothing, but on the other hand, we are told it would be wrong to repeal it. Why is that? If the PD is truly ephemeral, it has already accomplished what it set out to do: commemorate a specific day of a specific year in Talossan history which has already passed. (Indeed, with all of the attention drawn by this bill to the PD, I would say it accomplished its limited goals and then some.) Why then would there be such an organized effort to oppose this legislation, when the repeal of the PD would not take away that which has already passed? However, as this bill and arguments made by its supporters clearly lay out, this bill is not simply one that is ephemeral in nature. Just as I'm sure a PD celebrating "our one true savior, Jesus Christ" would be seen as in conflict with Organic Law even if it were ephemeral, this PD violates OrgLaw for much the same reasoning. Celebrating something as being the "correct" or "official" thing or way of doing something is ultimately enshrining recognition that the government has recognized something as being correct. This is exactly what is occurring here when 52PD1 goes beyond celebrating #KARED day, but celebrates the government officially recognizing the correct color of Atatürk being red. Perhaps one disagrees with my interpretation of Organic Law here. If such is the case, it simply comes back to this being an ephemeral PD that doesn't do anything, and whether it is repealed or not nothing will change. So why take the chance? Why shouldn't we support repeal of this PD, even if there is just a slight chance it could be seen as violating Organic Law? After all, according to its supporters, it doesn't ultimately do anything. Another secondary argument is that the PD only addresses a specific use of color, that being in graphs. Of course, this is where the disagreement on which color to use initially began, as I discuss in further detail in the post above. That said, the PD does not have any foundational language to suggest the color red was for the limited use of graphs, nor do any of the posts celebrating the day itself suggest that it was for graphs either. Indeed, it was celebrated from a cultural standpoint, with supporters making known their love of the color red with music associated with that color. This places the PD squarely within the cultural dicta category reserved for provinces, as required by OrgLaw, and any attempt to write it off after the fact is demonstrably false. As we know, Atatürk passed its own bill recognizing its color as red, thanks to this bill's discussion on how it had the exclusive right to do so. The argument this bill is unnecessary because it is duplicitious or it affirms what rights are already in OrgLaw is nonsense, because as the foundation of this bill sets forth, the continued existence of this PD conflicts with OrgLaw, and the past history of a government office having a policy on color necessitates an added line to El Lexhatx to remind the Kingdom of the right which already exists. I agree, this bill would be duplicitous if the PD not been issued or countersigned in the first place. The further argument against this bill is that it detracts from the purpose of this and other PDs in the first place: a government sponsored initiative to encourage individuals to update the Wiki. A novel initiative to be sure, and I think that many support it, even among those who also support this bill. But simply put, this can't change the simple fact that 52PD1 goes too far. It violates OrgLaw, and just because this initiative exists we are expected to oppose its repeal so as not to discourage others from taking advantage of the initiative in the future. Amusing as that may be, I would question what evidence is there to prove that anyone is being discouraged from updating the Wiki? Just recently, in fact, the co-sponsor of this very legislation went one step beyond just updating the Wiki but livestreamed himself doing so! There is no evidence to prove that this legislation hinders in any way the government's ability to encourage others to update the Wiki, and I would argue the government's nearly personal defensive stance on their initiative (as we've seen in their arguments against this bill) perhaps hinders their initiative exponentially more than this legislation ever could. On the subject of this bill being my own personal way of "winning an argument" or supporting "#KAYELLOW4EVR", it unequivocally is not. Yes, I do support #KAYELLOW. But my co-sponsor does not. Regardless, it should not be a disagreement the government should step into. When the PD was first issued, I found it discouraging that the execution of the powers of the Prime Ministry were being used, or mis-used, in such a manner. It took everyone by surprise, even if we should have seen it coming based on the statements by the SoS, and it did escalate matters needlessly. The PD nearly took the fun out of this several year long personal disagreement over color choice for me. I agree with my colleague the Senator from Atatürk: I have no hard feelings regarding the individuals involved, but I also hope this unfortunate bleed from personal to professional is not repeated.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Oct 16, 2018 17:21:19 GMT -6
I rise again to address an even more novel argument raised in the voting thread, that being the PD is Organic as the Kingdom has the right to determine provincial symbols that only national level government offices would be required to follow.
It's important to remember the context in which the PD was put into place. At the time, remember, no province had set a symbolic color depiction (as is their exclusive right outside of the enumerated powers of the Ziu).
This PD speaks only to the "correct color" of Atatürk, not the color of any other province. Additionally, as the PD reads, it leaves open the possibility that the color of Maricopa, M-M, Vuode, or any other province under the sun could also be red in addition to Atatürk.
The section F.40 this law would add to el Lexhatx would only restate the Organic Law already on the books with regards to cultural dicta of provinces. It does not prohibit the government from making any chart that does depict Atatürk as red or Vuode as green, but merely states that government offices may not state an "official" color of any province--particularly not with ominous sounding (if not obviously sarcastic) threats of "Dissent will not be tolerated."
With all of this in mind, it is clear that this PD exists outside of the scope of any hypothetical dispute between two provinces both claiming the same color and a government office not being able to figure out how to color the map in. The argument raised in the voting thread falls flat for this very reason.
Plus, given the nature of the initiative that birthed this PD, anyone who completes the requisite number of Wiki edits could--let's say--have a PD issued declaring a #KAYELLOW day, wherein we celebrate the correct color of Atatürk is yellow. With both PDs in effect, according to this argument, it would then require the Ziu to take action to resolve this statutory conflict, particularly when the national government is free to ignore provincial law wherin Atatürk has itself set its color as red.
Moreover, given that the Ziu is expressly prohibited from stepping into determinations of any province's symbols, flags, heraldry, anthems, cultural events or other like things (per Org.17.6.17), and all powers not vested in the Kingdom shall be vested exclusively to the provinces, it is hard to suggest the Ziu has any right whatsoever in even resolving a supposed dispute over color. The idea that provinces could ignore the Kingdom's color laws passed in the wake of disputes and follow their own when it comes to their color choice is also expressly forbidden by Org.17.7:
I hope the members of the Ziu can see past this last minute addition to the arguments in opposition to this bill.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Oct 20, 2018 16:38:15 GMT -6
[E]veryone knows that a PD cannot violate the Organic Law. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Oct 25, 2018 10:47:02 GMT -6
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
As the primary author of this bill, I continue to believe that 52PD1 is inOrganic.
It is disappointing the Ziu was misled at times as to the purpose, applicability, or Organicity of either this bill or the PD; and that over the course of two months, the arguments against passage of the bill kept getting more novel as time went on.
The final argument made by supporters regarding the bill suggested that it was in fact inOrganic as applicable to the situation I described in my bill. But because applying the PD to other situations could be seen as an Organic exercise of the PD, and because of the assurance that the government would not inOrganically enforce the PD, then it should remain as law. Furthermore, should I have any concerns regarding its inOrganicity, the recourse is the court system, not the Ziu, despite actually admitting the PD was inOrganic.
This bill, much like the PD, was meant to be lighthearted but immediately taken the other direction. And while it did expose how lawmakers should do a better job of ensuring compliance with Organic Law in the future, it did more to expose how this administration will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals, and for which they take personal offense.
I will not be filing a complaint with the Uppermost Cort like the Seneschal suggested, despite feeling confident the outcome would be in my favor. I will also not be reintroducing the bill a second, third, and fourth time like some of my colleagues seem to believe is an acceptable practice. But I do take notice of what has occurred surrounding the debate of this bill, and this will influence my judgement regarding future coalitions.
For those interested, I will be compiling a timeline of the novel arguments in opposition to the bill and releasing in the near future.
|
|