SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)

[afleitch]

Okay.  An opinion from the AG would be very helpful, as well.

I am more than happy to.

[afleitch]

If I may adress the Senate on this issue, particularly Senator Clarence's points.

The ERA would simply guarantee that the rights affirmed by our constitution are held equally without regard to sex or sexual orienation. Sex and sexual orientation through this amendment would be considered a 'suspect classification'; similar to how race is treated. Therefore actions taken by this government that treat males, females or peopleacross the spectrum of sexuality differently as a class, would be subject to judicial scrutiny and would have to meet the highest level of justification ('a necessary relation to a compelling state interest') in order to be upheld as constitutional. Senator Clarence suggests that the ERA places a 'blanket ban' on an organisation that discriminates membership based on sex. He should be aware that even without an ERA, Supreme Court decisions undertaken by our predecessor nation has limited the consitutionality of public single-sex unions (Mississippi University for Woman v Hogan, U.S v Commonwealth of Virginia (1996) ) However the constitution already provides for freedom of assembly. The ERA does not contravene that right specifically when applied to exclusively private members organisations. It is important to read this amendment as part of our constitution, not set apart from it.

Senator Clarence also raises his concern over the draft. Amendment VIII of the Third Constitution reads; "Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen, without the consent of four-fifths of the Senate." Naturally the draft has not been enforced since 1973 and this amendment strengthens this position. In the event that four-fifths of the Senate vote to enact compulsory conscription there is nothing currently in the constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. It just so happens that the Senate has not required them to participate or register with the Selective Service System but it still holds the power to do so (confined by Amendment VIII.) Should the ERA be passed then there would still be nothing in the Constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. However it would make exluding them from consideration solely on account of their sex unconstitutional for the first time. There is no legitimate reason in my opinion to exclude women from combat or front-line roles should they be mentally and physically qualified to do so. At the moment, except for a few select positions, women are excluded firstly (and exclusively) on account of their gender, not their combat readiness or any other attribute. If a women is fit to serve a selected role she should serve. If she is unfit she shouldn't serve. This works well for men.

On the matter of transgenderism being a 'choice' I have to stridently disagree with the Senator. Having a gender identity different to one's physical sex is not a choice. His restroom analogy is slightly off. Firstly there would still be seperate restrooms should an establishment wish (or unisex restrooms should they wish) as long as both sexes can do what they need to do. That is common practice anyway. All the ERA would outlaw, if it even still happens, is only having toilets exclusively for one sex. However I digress. A post op transgender, having had their physical sex re-aligned with their gender identity should not be barred from using the restrooms allocated to their physical sex. If anything, Atlasia needs thorough and comprehensive legislation on transgender issues but this is something I would put to the Senate to consider.

[afleitch]

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.

[afleitch]

I appreciate afleitch speaking to my concerns... I can't say I was persuaded by his comments however

Rather then specifically argue each point (such as women in combat) I will sum up my view and get down to brass tax.... men and women are different. We are made differently by our Creator, we have had different roles throughout human history, and we have different abilities. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same...it is not as if I want women to all be homemakers as that is not what I believe in the slightest. But to mandate women have a football team and be permitted to join the Boy Scouts... to put men and women in the same restroom...there are far too many variables here. Where there is discrimination, it must be fought...but I don't believe that includes activities or organizations which recognize our God-given differences between the sexes

With respect, it appears you have not full read and understood my statement. I do not consider that our law should be affected by religious notions of 'difference between the sexes.' No one is denying that men and women are different, or any two people from any section of society are different but they have the right to be treated by the law as the same and have the same opportunities. I do not know where you think this law will cause men and women to 'use the same restroom'; I explained succinctly why that was and is a ludicrous position.

[afleitch]

Senators; I'm curious about this legislation.

Firstly I agree with Senator TJ's concern over intent; 'convicted of a crime related to his tenure' could mean anything; they could be convicted of any manner of misdemeanors relating to their tenure/employment and suffer a penalty which someone lower does not (such as sexual harassment for example which is of course abhorrent but this law could be used to throw the book at a CEO but not someone on the board or in lower management guilty of a similar offence) The wording should reflect the crime which I presume is specifically financial mismanagement.

I would also be wary of the wording of 'forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position' as that contradicts Section 2; some of what has been accrued pension wise will have been from before The person held their current position of CEO.