|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 20, 2014 13:44:19 GMT -6
Non-citizens should be able to form or control Talossan parties - they cannot vote, be elected or serve in any official duty, but they may well join a party or have a leading role therein. They may also register a party, it is not the word of law that non-citizens are prohibited to form organisations (which a party ultimately is) and nor were it sensible to withhold from them these rights!
So long as they declare that they know about their inability to hold seats or serve in the Government when not an Erteier, I see no problem therein. Now if you strongly believe that non-citizens are less entitled to these rights, we could change the section to say "Parties may only be registered by citizens of the Kingdom." or so.
EDIT: Think about it, it is none of the Organic Law's business who the party itself may consult with to make up its mind. It is only the party members' concern.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 20, 2014 14:11:01 GMT -6
Non-citizens should be able to form or control Talossan parties - they cannot vote, be elected or serve in any official duty, but they may well join a party or have a leading role therein. They may also register a party, it is not the word of law that non-citizens are prohibited to form organisations (which a party ultimately is) and nor were it sensible to withhold from them these rights! Party leaders decide who gets the seats won by the party. I don't want non-citizens actually naming the members of our national legislature. You're right that there is currently no legal prohibition on parties being started by non-citizens, though.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Feb 20, 2014 14:11:06 GMT -6
I wholeheartedly disagree that non-citizens should be able to form or control Talossan political parties. I have some reservations but not many about non-citizens being MEMBERS. It is not a universal right but a right of citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 20, 2014 14:44:56 GMT -6
S:reu, you can make decisions about your party, but meddle not with the party politics of others.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 20, 2014 14:51:39 GMT -6
Non-citizens should be able to form or control Talossan parties - they cannot vote, be elected or serve in any official duty, but they may well join a party or have a leading role therein. They may also register a party, it is not the word of law that non-citizens are prohibited to form organisations (which a party ultimately is) and nor were it sensible to withhold from them these rights! Party leaders decide who gets the seats won by the party. I don't want non-citizens actually naming the members of our national legislature. You're right that there is currently no legal prohibition on parties being started by non-citizens, though. The Organic Law VIII:3 would like to oppose: And VIII:6 states: I take my humble leave! *chapeau*
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 20, 2014 15:01:20 GMT -6
The Organic Law VIII:3 would like to oppose: Your quotes don't contradict anything I wrote. Party leaders name the MCs, even though only citizens can serve as MCs. I don't want non-citizens picking who gets to serve in the Cosa, even if they must pick from among the citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 20, 2014 15:51:36 GMT -6
It's generally a good idea for a country to try to avoid easy external influence in its internal political affairs. It's especially a good idea for Talossa, which is tiny and has a diverse electorate and global reach. Talossan affairs should never become proxy to larger forces, since our decisions should always be based on what is best for the country and her citizens. Further, our neighbor of the USA is extremely wealthy and has the potential to be ruinously influential on Talossan affairs.
The Ziu should be able to legislate on the extent to which foreign citizens will be able to influence our politics, and so it would be very unwise to just grant everyone in the world the same rights to participate in Talossan politics as Talossan citizens. It is almost shockingly unwise, in fact - any party that could tap into the hugely disproportionate funds of other countries could control advertising and resources that would be a thousand orders of magnitude what could be mustered by other parties.
I think that this is a good general idea for an amendment, but this is an incredibly delicate area and we need to have foresight and caution about any changes we make. I will absolutely not support any alterations to the Covenants that are not written with the utmost care, or that do not consider our vast future and the perils of loose language. Let's work out something that can pass and that will secure Talossa's posterity.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Feb 20, 2014 16:36:06 GMT -6
S:reu, you can make decisions about your party, but meddle not with the party politics of others. There really is no reason for what reads like rudeness. I cannot see how you came to the conclusion that I am "meddling" with another party by not liking having non-citizens CONTROL them. I will not vote for this bill as written.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 20, 2014 17:12:49 GMT -6
When I said "everyone", I meant unnaturalised immigrants with residence authorisation, permanent residents of foreign Citizenship, etc. blablabluh. Not every tourist, etc. pp. I realise that I have expressed myself in a false manner: When I say everybody should be included in the political business of a nation, I really mean not tourists. Steering in the originally intended direction: This bill's purpose is not to change Talossa's political life, but to grant the same Human Rights to every man, woman and child alike! Now, if you wish, we can change the wordings of the particular party-case to include something like "Residents not recognised by the Kingdom may not form or lead a party." However, whether a party permits a non-citizen to obtain membership should not be our business. D:r Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă, relax; I was not being rude. There is no reason to be huffy whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 20, 2014 17:14:30 GMT -6
S:reu, you can make decisions about your party, but meddle not with the party politics of others. I thought your party held the position that all political parties should be required to submit ironclad party lists of prospective MCs before elections, and that parties like the RUMP, which prefer to remain more flexible and permit freer assigning of seats, should not be allowed that choice? If you are in earnest, and do think that no laws should restrict parties from however they choose to govern themselves or assign seats, then even if we can't find common ground here, I think we'll definitely find ourselves in agreement the next time that a bill demanding un-alterable party lists is introduced!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 20, 2014 17:21:45 GMT -6
When I said "everyone", I meant unnaturalised immigrants with residence authorisation, permanent residents of foreign Citizenship, etc. blablabluh. Not every tourist, etc. pp. I realise that I have expressed myself in a false manner: When I say everybody should be included in the political business of a nation, I really mean not tourists. Steering in the originally intended direction: This bill's purpose is not to change Talossa's political life, but to grant the same Human Rights to every man, woman and child alike! Now, if you wish, we can change the wordings of the particular party-case to include something like "Residents not recognised by the Kingdom may not form or lead a party." However, whether a party permits a non-citizen to obtain membership should not be our business. The law is only the law. If you want to grant the Third Covenant to all citizens and prospective immigrants and "permanent residents," then that is different than "all people." No, I would not be okay with your proposed new language, either, I'm afraid. In combination with your other changes, it would still make it an Organic right for non-citizens to donate, influence, etc. our political parties and system. As I said before: I think your proposed change to the Preamble is a problem, and should be removed. Handle and consider each Covenant individually, and carefully.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 20, 2014 17:21:50 GMT -6
S:reu, you can make decisions about your party, but meddle not with the party politics of others. I thought your party held the position that all political parties should be required to submit ironclad party lists of prospective MCs before elections, and that parties like the RUMP, which prefer to remain more flexible and permit freer assigning of seats, should not be allowed that choice? If you are in earnest, and do think that no laws should restrict parties from however they choose to govern themselves or assign seats, then even if we can't find common ground here, I think we'll definitely find ourselves in agreement the next time that a bill demanding un-alterable party lists is introduced! But this is something entirely different: While it may or may not be of the citizens' interest to know who is allowed to be a member or leader or consultant of a party, when it comes to prospective Members of the Cosa, it is imperative to know who the party is going to put forth. It is always an advantage to know who will represent you in the Kingdom's legislative branch. ¡It is of great import that voter know who he will cast his vote for and whether that one, two, or three person(s) can represent him satisfactorily and be his legislative mouthpiece! ¡Nice try, though, S:reu Davinescu!
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 20, 2014 17:32:42 GMT -6
Let us say I left the Preamble as it now is and changed the rest - where sensible and applicable - to "every person". If I did so, S:reu Davinescu, and the Preamble read that "[it] guarantees the rights set out in them to all Talossan citizens", then it is still fact that "every person" may and will quite possibly be interpreted as "every Talossan person", which is not the intention of my bill. If I were to leave the Preamble, the whole bill would be just a fancy way of changing the wordings in the Covenant of Rights.
I want to yank Talossa out of a possible Saudi-Arabian similarity, where not everybody is equal before law. And according to the Covenant of Rights, Talossan citizens are more equal and more human before the law than non-citizens, and that is outrageous.
Honestly, I really believe not that the changing of the Preamble will bring upon us a huge damage. It is more reasonable to apply the Covenant of Rights to everybody and then restrict few things, rather than to restrict the application of the Covenants to Talossan citizens, but broaden its application at massive points, which would not be broadened, because they were previously restricted to a set of people.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 20, 2014 17:41:41 GMT -6
But this is something entirely different: While it may or may not be of the citizens' interest to know who is allowed to be a member or leader or consultant of a party, when it comes to prospective Members of the Cosa, it is imperative to know who the party is going to put forth. It is always an advantage to know who will represent you in the Kingdom's legislative branch. ¡It is of great import that voter know who he will cast his vote for and whether that one, two, or three person(s) can represent him satisfactorily and be his legislative mouthpiece! ¡Nice try, though, S:reu Davinescu! Er, ok. I thought that you were stating some sort of broader philosophical point in your statement to Txec, since it seemed like you were declaring that we shouldn't dictate by law the ways a political party governs itself. In fact, reading back over what you wrote, it still seems like this is what you were saying. Yes, of course, I understand the argument put forward by fans of the mandatory candidate list. I certainly agree that there is a case to be made that parties should be restricted from awarding seats to people not on an ironclad list, but I have thought and still think that there is great advantage in a small and fast-moving country like ours to permit more freedom - like when Reunision happened and former Republicans were ushered into the Cosa with joy, or when MPF rejoined the country and immediately began to (extremely helpfully) contribute with his long experience. I'm not sure your positions here are consistent. You say: "Think about it, it is none of the Organic Law's business who the party itself may consult with to make up its mind. It is only the party members' concern." and "S:reu, you can make decisions about your party, but meddle not with the party politics of others." This seems to pretty clearly indicate that you think that parties should be free to include whomever they want and make decisions however they want, even if a party includes non-citizens in those decisions. That's a position with which I am not sure I agree, but it certainly makes sense: if voters want such a party to represent them, then that should be allowed. It's a good idea to say that the Ziu shouldn't mandate a particular way a party should run itself or distribute votes, as a principle. But you are also advocating that parties should only be permitted to choose MCs from a pre-arranged list, on the basis of your belief that this is the better and more representative way. That would seem contradictory - weren't you just saying that "meddle not with the party politics of others?" I don't see how you can simultaneously hold these two positions at once. It seems as though you should either support party freedom to choose how they distribute seats, or else you should recognize the right of the Ziu to mandate aspects of how parties run themselves. Either parties can choose how they operate, as a matter of principle, or not. Let us say I left the Preamble as it now is and changed the rest - where sensible and applicable - to "every person". If I did so, S:reu Davinescu, and the Preamble read that "[it] guarantees the rights set out in them to all Talossan citizens", then it is still fact that "every person" may and will quite possibly be interpreted as "every Talossan person", which is not the intention of my bill. If I were to leave the Preamble, the whole bill would be just a fancy way of changing the wordings in the Covenant of Rights. Certainly the specific language of any individual provision would override the general sentiment that the Covenants are granted to Talossan citizens. I disagree with your interpretation. But if you think that is the case, perhaps you can think of alternative language that will apply selected Covenants to everyone outside of Talossa, without granting to non-citizens those rights that should be restricted to our own. I want to yank Talossa out of a possible Saudi-Arabian similarity, where not everybody is equal before law. And according to the Covenant of Rights, Talossan citizens are more equal and more human before the law than non-citizens, and that is outrageous. That's an interested perspective, but doesn't seem very sophisticated. I can think of many rights that only Talossans should hold, such as the right to pass on citizenship to progeny, or the right to petition for a grant of arms, or the right to vote, and so on. Frankly, I wonder at your alarmism here... I am a Talossan and so I get to vote in Talossan elections, but that doesn't make me "more human" than a Tunisian, does it? Honestly, I really believe not that the changing of the Preamble will bring upon us a huge damage. It is more reasonable to apply the Covenant of Rights to everybody and then restrict few things, rather than to restrict the application of the Covenants to Talossan citizens, but broaden its application at massive points, which would not be broadened, because they were previously restricted to a set of people. But you were, just one moment ago, arguing that the Preamble would override any specific sentiments!
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Feb 20, 2014 22:04:04 GMT -6
I thought we were against "Booksing" . Has that changed?
|
|