Mideast Assembly Thread

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thought I mentioned that, as something similar to "Do Not Call." You could also provide incentives for those who choose to remain on the program, such as a tax exemption per group that resides on their land per year up to $X.

I was thinking that too.  But I'll leave that up to the Assembly.  I did my job of getting it to an acceptable piece that I could sign into law.  If they want to fiddle with it more, that's what they're elected for.

[Peter]

The various amendment proposals that have been suggested, I do not find to be palatable.

*Inks' proposal to make this voluntary might as well be no bill at all. Why ever should we pass a bill to say that something that is already voluntary, is in fat ... voluntary. Its called redundant law.

*Purple State's proposal of incentivising opening of land is not acceptable in my view. Creating a bureaucracy to administer this, and then either tax breaks or hand-outs to large landowners is just ridiculous in my opinion. People with large amounts of land tend to have large amounts of money too. Given our economic times, if we are going to give handouts, lets give them to working families that actually need them.

I don't want this issue to drag on as there are other things we could consider. If there is no movement towards something I might be able to get on board with, I'm going to come down on one side of this issue in 24 hours.

[big bad fab]

Our Governor's proposal isn't exactly to switch to a voluntary scheme.

You have to voluntarily REFUSE to open your land. We all know that many people won't bother to call the Department of Natural Resources to make clear that they refuse.

The problem is the same (sorry for the comparison) with the fate of your organs after your death. In some countries, you have to say explicitly that you authorize surgeons to pick your organs; in other countries, you have to refuse explicitly, because the law is the other way round.

You rightly points to the need not to spend more on this. That's why fiscal incentives are, indeed, not acceptable.

But, in the case of our Governor's proposal, the Department of Natural Resources already exists: just taking the explicit refusals into account in a register, linked with the land registry office, doesn't cost anything.

Our Governor shows his openness and has tried to do all he can in the limits of a big principle: private property, which is written in our law and in Atlasia's constitution.

But I'm just a citizen of the MidEast region giving you his opinion. I let you proceed.
Thanks for your attention.

[Badger]

The various amendment proposals that have been suggested, I do not find to be palatable.

*Inks' proposal to make this voluntary might as well be no bill at all. Why ever should we pass a bill to say that something that is already voluntary, is in fat ... voluntary. Its called redundant law.

*Purple State's proposal of incentivising opening of land is not acceptable in my view. Creating a bureaucracy to administer this, and then either tax breaks or hand-outs to large landowners is just ridiculous in my opinion. People with large amounts of land tend to have large amounts of money too. Given our economic times, if we are going to give handouts, lets give them to working families that actually need them.

I don't want this issue to drag on as there are other things we could consider. If there is no movement towards something I might be able to get on board with, I'm going to come down on one side of this issue in 24 hours.

<sigh> As much as I genuinely appreciate the Governor's attempt to find middle ground, I have to agree with Peter. The only real difference between this and the previous toothless proposal to make it completely voluntary is the requirement the land owner file something with the Mideast DNR. I suspect real estate agents and attorneys would add the DNR opt out forms along with standard closing boilerplate any purchase of land exceeding 400 acres. The end result would be nearly the same: The "freedom to roam" becomes discretionary at the option of the landowner same as today, with the rare exception of a landowner that forgot to file a form with the DNR.

I likewise concur with Peter regarding the offer of financial incentives for large landowner being a misplaced priority, particularly with the regional budget facing an $80 billion deficit.

I renew my motion to amend the word "and" to "or" in Clause 10 of the original bill. I realize this creates a new bill and we'll have to go through the additional step of passing this as new legislation, only to presumably be vetoed again and then vote on a veto override, but Inks is right on this point. This was a drafting error we in the Assembly missed the first time around and it needs changed to avoid absurd results.

Second?

[Peter]

Given full consideration, I will not vote to override a veto on this issue.

Does Badger/SC still wish to proceed to amend the bill, have it vetoed, and then have the override fail?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Although I would have wished for the veto to be overridden, I think it's time to move on to other questions. I feel strongly for this bill, but we've been discussing it for almost half this term now, and I think it might be time to give way for other proposals.

I might bring this up again some other time, as I believe the citizens of the Mideast would benefit greatly from a Freedom to Roam law, but as it is now, there are other questions that need to be discussed and debated, and since my proposal fails to attract support from the Governor, the Speaker, and much of the population of this region, I see no reason to occupy the Assembly with this for any more weeks.

     

[Badger]

Although I would have wished for the veto to be overridden, I think it's time to move on to other questions. I feel strongly for this bill, but we've been discussing it for almost half this term now, and I think it might be time to give way for other proposals.

I might bring this up again some other time, as I believe the citizens of the Mideast would benefit greatly from a Freedom to Roam law, but as it is now, there are other questions that need to be discussed and debated, and since my proposal fails to attract support from the Governor, the Speaker, and much of the population of this region, I see no reason to occupy the Assembly with this for any more weeks.
     

In light of Assemblyman Sweedish Cheese's position, I withdraw the amendment.

[Badger]

The Mideast Equal Rights Under the Law for All Act.

"All Mideastern statutes and regulations which prohibit discrimination or disparate treatment under the law on the basis of, or guarantee legal rights or privileges regardless of, a subject's race, national origin, religion, or gender, shall henceforth be amended to include "sexual orientation" as a similarly illegal basis of discrimination or denial of legal rights."

The aim of this proposal is simple: That anywhere Mideastern law currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, etc., that the law likewise prohibit such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Other than possible culture war arguments against granting gays and lesbians "special rights", I anticipate some might initially object to this law as redundant with other state and federal statutes. I respectfully disagree.

Article V, Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Mideast Constitution prohibit denial of the right to vote, run for office, or other specific rights under the Mideast Bill of Rights on the basis of "sexuality". But these guaranteed rights are quite specific and restricted. For example, there is no guaranteed constitutional right to employment. Thus, the Mideast further banned employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation:
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Gay_Discrimination_in_the_Workplace_Ban_Statute
These are excellent starts, but presently there are numerous areas of Mideastern law where discrimination is still not prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation--such as housing, and education--even though such discrimination is rightly prohibited on the basis of race, gender, etc.

Second, I realize that federal Atlasian law largely prohibits discrimination in most arenas based on sexual orientation. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Equal_Rights_Act_of_2007
But--and this is key--because there is a federal cause of action for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not mean for an instant that Mideastern law should not ban such discrimination as well.

Even though the 1965 Civil Rights Law banned discrimination in public facilities and employment on the basis of race, religion, and national origin, every single state in the country also has similar anti-discrimination statutes on its books, and in many states were only passed after 1965. These state statues are used in conjunction with federal laws every day by people who have been discriminated against. There are variations between state and federal laws on statute of limitations, causes of action, damages, etc. A state court action can be filed in any county where the defendant resides or where the discrimination tool place; federal courthouses are limited to only the 3 or 4 largest cities in a state. For all of these reasons, it is imperative that Mideastern citizens who have been discriminated against have access to our regional court system for redress under the law.

Very simply, if discrimination is prohibited anywhere by Mideastern law on the basis of race, national origin, religion, or gender, then the law should likewise prohibit such discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Vepres]

Badger, I can't wait for the day you enter the national Senate, great work here.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Run, Badger!

[Purple State]

Ahhh, the beauty of a regional Assembly. Both Badger and Swedish Cheese (and Peter, of course) have been great additions to the Mideast Assembly. Their outside-the-box initiatives and clearly developed and thought out ideas really are a pleasure to see.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Badger, this legislation is simply brilliant.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

[Franzl]

Very good work!

[Badger]

Wow!  Thanks for all the love guys. I'm feelin' you. Now let's see if I can actually get this bill passed. ;-)

And hopefully soon, as the Assembly session is half over and I have a tenative list more bills I'd like to submit.

[HappyWarrior]

Badger with this and your acceptance of my dog bill I think you have won my vote for reelection.  Saving yourself for the debacle of that smoking bill.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wonder whether the principle could be stretched further - to ban discrimination on grounds of class, for example. No objections t' actual bill though.

[Badger]

Badger with this and your acceptance of my dog bill I think you have won my vote for reelection.  Saving yourself for the debacle of that smoking bill.

Very much obliged, Hap!

[Badger]

Badger, I can't wait for the day you enter the national Senate, great work here.

Run, Badger!

Move to the Mideast and maybe I will. ;-)

(Just kidding of course--I greatly dislike strategic registration. But thanks for the encouragement!)

[Peter]

The Mideast Equal Rights Under the Law for All Act.

"All Mideastern statutes and regulations which prohibit discrimination or disparate treatment under the law on the basis of, or guarantee legal rights or privileges regardless of, a subject's race, national origin, religion, or gender, shall henceforth be amended to include "sexual orientation" as a similarly illegal basis of discrimination or denial of legal rights."

The above bill is on the table.

I support the bil, but I would note the following things - the equal protection clause arguably provides a sturdy defense against all discrimination by government on grounds of sexual orientation. Obviously this does not impede private actors, and so I am willing to support this bill.

[Badger]

The Mideast Equal Rights Under the Law for All Act.

"All Mideastern statutes and regulations which prohibit discrimination or disparate treatment under the law on the basis of, or guarantee legal rights or privileges regardless of, a subject's race, national origin, religion, or gender, shall henceforth be amended to include "sexual orientation" as a similarly illegal basis of discrimination or denial of legal rights."

The above bill is on the table.

I support the bil, but I would note the following things - the equal protection clause arguably provides a sturdy defense against all discrimination by government on grounds of sexual orientation. Obviously this does not impede private actors, and so I am willing to support this bill.

As Swedish Cheese  has also publically declared his support for the bill, Mr. Speaker, may the Chair please consider calling for a vote at this time?

[Peter]

May I take this as no objeciton to proceeding to vote?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

May I take this as no objeciton to proceeding to vote?

Yes

[Peter]

The vote is on the bill that I quoted above. Please vote now.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The Mideast Equal Rights Under the Law for All Act.

"All Mideastern statutes and regulations which prohibit discrimination or disparate treatment under the law on the basis of, or guarantee legal rights or privileges regardless of, a subject's race, national origin, religion, or gender, shall henceforth be amended to include "sexual orientation" as a similarly illegal basis of discrimination or denial of legal rights."

  Aye