D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #26:
Dieter N Vercáriâ | >
> > Let's not make this document a law, because
> >
> > a) it would impose an unfair restriction on politicians, groups and parties which like to pursue a different way in intertalossan affairs. It shall remain fully up to the wisdom of the electors whether they would support a different approach or not. Freedom of speech and thought must not be limited by a law, even if eternal repetitions of the same arguments that are going around in circles will supposedly make us sick and tired.
>
> I want to make it a law, because that would mean that any attempt to change this Doctrine (thanks for the term) will have to be debated in the parliamentary arena. Making it a law just makes it a matter for the democratically elected Deputies rather than the indirectly elected Government to decide - which I think is important. Actually, ideally, I would like to make it a law only amendable by referendum, but that might be considered going too far.
>
> I'm happy to amend it to make it clear that this act ONLY binds the Government of the Republic and its agents and places no limitations on the freedom of speech and political debate of private citizens.
Presently I'm withholding a comment, because I hope that more Deputies will want to express their opionion here.
> > b) I'm not completely sure about this, but I reckon if the document became a law, it might introduce a new definition of Talossan nationality to our laws, which possibly exceeds the term and definition of citizenship that we are using by now. This extended definition might eventually implicitly trump Const. I,2.3.
>
> It defines "Talossan nationality" as something distinct from "citizenship of the Republic". Nationality is defined nowhere else in our laws and constitutions, and this bill doesn't change the definition of citizenship. Perhaps this confuses the Seneschál because, I think, in Germany citizenship and nationality are the same thing. The purpose of the gesture is to make clear that Kingdom citizens are Talossans too, which is an important gesture of fairness.
Your Seneschál is not confused. I'm quite happy that the laws of the Republic take an utterly modern approach to the issue of defining "citizenship" (whereas we may have taken it too far, as by giving up on the concept of "dandelions" we became a childless society by default, which is unusual, to say it cautiously), and wouldn't recommend us to get into legally defining "nationality" as something that is not identical to "citizenship". In comparision to macronations, in the nationality legislation issue we're more like the revolutionary France and less like the still a little bit quaint Federal Germany by now, and your exceptionally unconfused Seneschál likes it this way.
Actually there's no doubt about the matter of fact that the Kingdomcits are Talossans and that many people who quit one or the other political instance of Talossa are still Talossans if they're feeling like this... there is no need to pour every human sentiment into the casting mould of a law, IMHO.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
