MW: Midwest LGBT Equality, Hate Crimes and Suicide Prevention Act (Failed)

[Maxwell]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

[Maxwell]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

Could you be a little clearer please Maxwell? Firstly you seem to oppose this bill, and at the end you seem to support this bill.

I personally see nothing wrong with this bill.

Maybe I should've been clearer: If this bill still has the hate crimes section, then I hope for its defeat. However, the other parts of the bill, particularly suicide prevention, are areas where we could work together and do some good.

[Maxwell]

I encourage the Midwest to defeat this. A while back, the Midwest did away with hate crimes, and I believe that is right. We should not punish crime based on motive. That said, I think the rest of the bill has promise, and I think we should go into more detail on some of the legalistics of it, but I think it's a worthy cause to help with suicide prevention.

Maybe I'm just intervening too much, but that's my view of this bill.

Could you be a little clearer please Maxwell? Firstly you seem to oppose this bill, and at the end you seem to support this bill.

I personally see nothing wrong with this bill.

Maybe I should've been clearer: If this bill still has the hate crimes section, then I hope for its defeat. However, the other parts of the bill, particularly suicide prevention, are areas where we could work together and do some good.

Thank you! I understand now .
What's your problem with the hate crimes section exactly?

Two reasons:

1. We've already done away with hate crime legislation in the Midwest,
2. And I don't think punishing people for motivations behind their crimes is healthy. Hate to be corny, but isn't every violent crime one of hate? Their reasoning shouldn't matter.

[Maxwell]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

Hate crime laws do very little to reduce racism or homophobia. Those things will continue to exist with or without those laws.

Also I looked through the books, and I thought we had, but we hadn't. Shame, I might push one of my representatives to introduce something of the sort.

[Maxwell]

1) Which law exactly?
2) Hate crime legislation would have of course no interest if homophobia didn't exist. But homophobia exists and I believe that the law shall be made in relation with reality. Homophobia is still a problem, and this "hate crime legislation" towards a more "gay-friendly" society. I would oppose this passage if homophobia didn't exist, but that's not the case!

Hate crime laws do very little to reduce racism or homophobia. Those things will continue to exist with or without those laws.

Of course homophobia will still exist, but at least you could recognize that passing  Hate Crime Laws will reduce violent attacks towards gays?

By a negligible amount, and the cost is that it continues to twist and contort our legal system and punishes people for thought crime and I don't think that's right. I want society to be friendly to people of all kinds, but hate crime laws are the wrong way to do it.

[Maxwell]

This is progress, but again, I don't think Fred Phelps or the Westboro Baptist Church should be evicted, in spite of their terrible views. An amendment that gets rid of that last sentence would be great.

[Maxwell]

This is progress, but again, I don't think Fred Phelps or the Westboro Baptist Church should be evicted, in spite of their terrible views. An amendment that gets rid of that last sentence would be great.

Could you explain your opposition to the last article?

Sure.

I believe that Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church have every right to espouse their crazy beliefs, as it is their right to free speech. That right should not be infringed upon by the state. That last sentence would be unconstitutional, plain and simple.

[Maxwell]

This is progress, but again, I don't think Fred Phelps or the Westboro Baptist Church should be evicted, in spite of their terrible views. An amendment that gets rid of that last sentence would be great.

Could you explain your opposition to the last article?

Sure.

I believe that Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church have every right to espouse their crazy beliefs, as it is their right to free speech. That right should not be infringed upon by the state. That last sentence would be unconstitutional, plain and simple.

So you definitely believe the right of free speech allows them to constantly say horrible words, to sabotage funerals etc?
I'm not even sure the right of free speech is in the Atlasia Constitution!
And I side with Alito on this issue!

Absolutely. And like the U.S. constitution: It's the first amendment.

[Maxwell]

Hold on, did Adam Fitzgerald even approve of the amendment to his bill?

[Maxwell]

The process here is a mess, and validates what I've said for a long time: it's time to streamline the process and make rules so that the person who is the Archduke is doing things with some form of order.

[Maxwell]

Real rules would allow us to carve out the details, issuing what authority Arturo has to block votes. and Slowing down the althings work may not be a bad thing: we can actually discuss legislation properly, allow some back and forth, and allow Adam Fitzgerald to oppose and hold a vote on the amendment to his bill.

This issue may have me returning to the Midwest Government pretty soon.

[Maxwell]

Real rules would allow us to carve out the details, issuing what authority Arturo has to block votes. and Slowing down the althings work may not be a bad thing: we can actually discuss legislation properly, allow some back and forth, and allow Adam Fitzgerald to oppose and hold a vote on the amendment to his bill.

This issue may have me returning to the Midwest Government pretty soon.

It's nothing really to worry about at all. If Arturo can cancel votes, then what's the problem? I'll take responsibility for not proposing an altered-altered version to Brewer's amendment sooner and I really think you're going after the wrong guy. 2 bills at a time works good to and it sets good order for the Althing.

Besides, OT but you just became Attorney General. You'll be painted as an opportunist if you run against Arturo.

The election isn't for two months, so I think I'll be fine, thank you. I don't really care about the perception, because it's not opportunistic (if anything I'm going down some pegs). And 2 bills at a time is good, I agree, but I think it's something we should put in writing. Even if we do, we can amend it.

I don't see what the negatives are if we have a set of rules that the legislature can change. Yes, there have been no problems, but why would it be so bad to do something and get some organization? I'm really puzzled by this.