Afleitch for Senate

[afleitch]

Action against forced civil unions - Working paper

The Elimination of Civil Marriage Law and Establishment of Civil Unions Act is a sound piece of legislation that enshrines the procedures under which civil unions are formed and between who they are formed. However coercive and forced unions for cultural and economic reasons between two persons should not be tolerated in our society. I make a distinct seperation between forced unions and arranged unions.

A forced civil union is a violation of the basic individual rights granted to all citizens. An amendment to that effect within Section 2 – Restrictions on Civil Union Licenses would be beneficial. However that also requires a legal definition of what constitutes a 'forced' union so discussion will be needed.

Any thoughts on the relevance of an amendment?

[afleitch]

Action against forced civil unions - Working paper

The Elimination of Civil Marriage Law and Establishment of Civil Unions Act is a sound piece of legislation that enshrines the procedures under which civil unions are formed and between who they are formed. However coercive and forced unions for cultural and economic reasons between two persons should not be tolerated in our society. I make a distinct seperation between forced unions and arranged unions.

A forced civil union is a violation of the basic individual rights granted to all citizens. An amendment to that effect within Section 2 – Restrictions on Civil Union Licenses would be beneficial. However that also requires a legal definition of what constitutes a 'forced' union so discussion will be needed.

Any thoughts on the relevance of an amendment?

I decided to enter it into the Legislation Introduction thread as looking at it I felt it should require a simple amendment. I hope it will find a sponsor

[afleitch]

The Repeal of the Act to Establish Atlasian Policy Towards HIV/AIDS is of great concern. The difficult passage of the Bill hurled me into a Senate campaign two years ago. I am strongly in support of a sensible drug, HIV/AIDS prevention and sex education programme. As I remarked at the time, our bill was very similar to the measures introduced by Thatcher's government in the UK particularly in regard to the needle exchange programme. These measures gave the UK comparitively low levels of infection rates. I hope that the Senate votes to retain this system and indeed expand upon it.

Further to this, I join with Franzl, Purple State and many Senators in condemning the attempt to repeal existing Atlasian policy towards protecting and preventing HIV/AIDS. I have spoken from the gallery to the Senate in an attempt to engage them with the operational side of that policy.

[afleitch]

On the issue of the Free Palestine Bill (or whetever it will be called!), I have no qualms with the current wording. It is perhaps a harmless bill and does nothing to interupt our trade links with Israel.

Our annual exports to Israel stands at some $9200 millions annually and our imports at $14527 millions. These are unnafected by the bill. Israel receives $2600 millions in non military aid annually. Our aid to Palestine has been less stable and only amounts to only and average of about $85 million a year since 1993. Due to imbalance in aid, I would not consider it to be a 'neutral' bill.

[afleitch]

On the Middle East

It may be useful to have legislation complementary to the Israel/Palestine deal drafted and proposed in order to a) address the Middle East and our existing and potential allies and b) to deal with the 'new' threats in Afghanisatan and in Pakistan's North West Frontier.

I hope if elected to help bring this to the table. But campaigning aside, there may be a need for a bill of this sort to be introduced sooner.

More soon...I hope!

[afleitch]

It is dissapointing that the HIV/AIDS policy bill remains deadlocked, that one Senator appears to be M.I.A and another unwilling to commit to a vote at this time. I believe that the retention of our exisiting policy is vital as those who oppose it and have tabled this bill have not given any indication of what our policy on HIV/AIDS will be should the bill pass.

[Franzl]

Well it's at 4-4 now, and the vote is over in 3 days.

I don't think you should worry too much....I don't believe it's likely that this passes.

[Lief 🗽]

And I would hope that if it did, the President would veto it.

[afleitch]

And I would hope that if it did, the President would veto it.

What a difference a few minutes makes Senator King has voted nay.

[afleitch]

Please find the first draft of a proposed Arab League Accord Bill

You will see how difficult this may be

Preamble

The Senate recognises the difficulties in negotiating a peaceful settlement in favour of a two nation solution to the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

The Senate acknowledges that at present thirty six nations do not recognise the State of Israel. These include all members of the Arab league with the exception of Jordan and Egypt.

Therefore;

1a. The Senate extends to the Arab League an offer that should Israel and the Palestinian Authority agree to a two nation solution, under the terms of the Middle East Peace Act of 2009, the Arab League should in return recognise and support the agreed solution in return for a negotiated trading deal involving member states of the League.

b. This offer shall take the form of regional talks chaired by representatives from Atlasia, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan and representatives from the European Union with the invitation to attend extended to all member states of the Arab League

c. Any nation that will not recognise nor extend diplomatic relations to the State of Israel and/or refuses to formalise and reinstate diplomatic relations with the Republic of Atlasia shall be exempt from the material outcome of any talks.

(d) Optional: Due to violence and racial genocide in the Darfur region, Sudan will be excluded from the material outcome of any talks

2 a. Talks will focus on an agreement to suspend tariffs between signatory nations, a targeted increase in aid from Atlasia to these nations and formalisation of a free trade agreement.

b. Conditions relating to the recognition of the State of Israel, counter terrorism measures, the cessation of state sponsorship and funding of terrorist groups and efforts to enhance the democratic process within the civil and political sphere will be tabled, discussed and enforced.

3. Any agreement reached in respect of informal free trade shall not be seen to infringe or replace the conditions within the exisitng free trade agreements with Morocco, Bahrain, Israel, Oman, Jordan and Kuwait.

4. Upon conclusion of these talks, any agreement reached shall will be presented to the Senate for it's discussion and approval.

----------

The bill may be extended to formalise a free trade agreement similar to those already in existance, however I do not think we should over reach ourself. It is better to hold talks and revisit the result of these talks (GM help here please!) through a future bill.

It's bloody difficult!

Comments please.

[Franzl]

It's a good idea....and an excellent piece of legislation to help effectively implement the Middle East Act we're about to pass in the Senate.

Not only is it really complex...and will provide lots and LOTS of debate....but I think it's really well written!

[Purple State]

As long as we have a responsible GM I am more than happy to continue with foreign affairs. I would just caution against such large scale diplomatic efforts, unless we can be fairly certain that the results will be favorable in the long run. There is only so much political and diplomatic capital a country can expend and it would be a shame to place so much effort into a situation that may fail.

I think any bill outlining this kind of approach needs to make perfectly clear our expectations and the conditions we expect to be met in any agreement reached. Then let the nations decide if this is something they want to be a part of.

[afleitch]

It's a good idea....and an excellent piece of legislation to help effectively implement the Middle East Act we're about to pass in the Senate.

Not only is it really complex...and will provide lots and LOTS of debate....but I think it's really well written!

Thank you

I am aware that having other states as equal partners in chairing the talks (especially the EU) may be divisive and should be up for discussion. We also cannot ignore pre-existing trade agreements (Jedi's the go to man on that one!) we have with Leagues member states without these conditions. Hopefully exisiting legislation can form the basis for a larger trade agreement.

[Hash]

As long as we have a responsible GM

The current GM is inactive and does extremely little.

[afleitch]

And I would hope that if it did, the President would veto it.

What a difference a few minutes makes Senator King has voted nay.

The bill has failed. If this ever returns to the Senate again it should be to increase and extend the program to cover blood donation, haemophilliacs and wider HIV/AIDS prevention strategies.

[Franzl]

And I would hope that if it did, the President would veto it.

What a difference a few minutes makes Senator King has voted nay.

The bill has failed. If this ever returns to the Senate again it should be to increase and extend the program to cover blood donation, haemophilliacs and wider HIV/AIDS prevention strategies.

[Devilman88]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Purple State. If the The Regional Activity Amendment gets passed before the senate election and you win your run for senate, would you still stay on the Mideast Assembly or step down?

[afleitch]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Purple State. If the The Regional Activity Amendment gets passed before the senate election and you win your run for senate, would you still stay on the Mideast Assembly or step down?

I will stand down. As the old expression says 'you cannot serve two masters.'

[Smid]

My friend, what is your opinion of the current High Speed Rail proposal before the Senate? I understand that you are from the Mideast Region and one line is in your Region, however you shall be running as an At Large Senator.

[afleitch]

My friend, what is your opinion of the current High Speed Rail proposal before the Senate? I understand that you are from the Mideast Region and one line is in your Region, however you shall be running as an At Large Senator.

I think that the route or routes that these lines should take should be determined after the Senate has decided how the railways are to be funded and most importantly how they are to be structured. I am pleased that Senator Franzl has considered my suggestion that the federal government construct the railways and allow private companies to run services. Such a proposal should also allow for these rails to be used by freight companies (though not to the detriment of passenger services - perhaps running them on off peak periods/overnight)

On a route, by route basis we should ensure that coverage reflects population settlement, business need, passenger need and industrial need.

[afleitch]

Action against forced civil unions - Working paper

The Elimination of Civil Marriage Law and Establishment of Civil Unions Act is a sound piece of legislation that enshrines the procedures under which civil unions are formed and between who they are formed. However coercive and forced unions for cultural and economic reasons between two persons should not be tolerated in our society. I make a distinct seperation between forced unions and arranged unions.

A forced civil union is a violation of the basic individual rights granted to all citizens. An amendment to that effect within Section 2 – Restrictions on Civil Union Licenses would be beneficial. However that also requires a legal definition of what constitutes a 'forced' union so discussion will be needed.

Any thoughts on the relevance of an amendment?

Proposed, sponsored, debated, passed. Excellent news and a strong thank you to all who voted in favour in the Senate.

On other news I will be in Belgium again from Wednesday to Monday. So I'll be absent for a short while

[afleitch]

Based on this; https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94592.new#new, I hope to launch a right of centre/conservative forum for discussion of party development in preperation for a new constitution and a new game. I encourage those of 'the left' to also get together and together look at where both sides can agree before we embed down into respective parties.  I am not suggesting we have just two parties, but I believe we can work together to establish a party system that will reflect the new Atlasia.

EDIT: Oh and on the issue of logos, I may as well post this for my friends on the left I just think it's cool.

[MasterJedi]

You do know that if you get your way on this the conservatives will really hold the power and you in the very center right will not really have any say in the party?

[afleitch]

You do know that if you get your way on this the conservatives will really hold the power and you in the very center right will not really have any say in the party?

Well I would hope that depends on the make-up of any party of the right. Look at it this way; a wider conservative party in a two party system could not function unless it paid attention to all it's members unless those on the centre decided to cross the floor. If there were a series of smaller parties on the right, the right could not govern unless it paid attention to these other parties. Either way all voices would have to be heard.

[Hash]

I find it appropriate to quote my last post in this setup, for reference and to avoid repeating the same stuff.

I don't think the Constitution should dictate any rules concerning parties. Parties should be allowed to draft their own by-laws and abide to them as they see fit. I also oppose this idea of setting "caps" on party membership. Yes, it would be fun. But I don't want to see [bad] tension, personal attacks and the like increase as a result of having parties with very limited membership. I don't like the "that's how it's in the real world" argument. We're not the real world. We're not a country. We're a community of a few members who do this primarily to have fun. We're not paid politicians. We do this for fun and not to make new enemies (quite the reverse, actually). As I said in the past, this is a game, peoples. Parties themselves should be allowed to become as large as possible, if there's enough members who wish to join that party. Parties should be allowed to expel members by approval of a majority of members, but clauses like that should not be in the Constitution. That's up to party bylaws and party leaders to take care of. The government has no role to play in internal party politics. I will oppose any constitution, universalist included, which seeks to have the federal government "regulate" political parties and the like.

Party systems is also up to the various members of the various parties. We don't want to have a ConCon set up a party system and then tell them "now, choose one of the parties we created for you". If such and such party wishes to merge with so and so, then they should be allowed to do so. But we shouldn't "force" parties to merge or create coalitions out of the blue. They should come about naturally as a result of a constitutional change. I see nothing wrong with the current parties continuing under a new constitutional set-up if these parties are able to reform accordingly. Do note, however, that I am strong proponent of strengthening parties in Atlasia and turning Atlasia away from a game of various individuals united by weak, leaderless "parties" into a game where parties have a bigger role to play. Of course, these parties must have strong leadership and united. This is why I support the party-list PR proposed by Lief. Or any system that strengthens parties.

The idea of a large tent party has been brought up by Afleitch. I am opposed to this. Firstly, I prefer a multi-party system that allows for fun times, coalition building, and the like. I don't see the fun in a return to a dichotomy of a large left-wing party and a large right-wing party. That would just create two large, very heterozygous parties. That's quite boring, also.

I also think such discussions might be better placed outside of this ConCon, which, as I have said above, should not attempt to regulate parties. This discussion might be better placed later, but there's no harm in having it now.

As to this very specific matter concerning the Atlasian right. I do not identify myself with left nor right. I'm a centrist a heart, a centrist who holds both liberal and conservative viewpoints. A centrist who holds viewpoints which at one time may be applauded by the left and booed by the right and at another one who holds viewpoints that may be applauded by the right and booed by the left. I founded the Democratic Alliance last year to represent this middle-ground. I'm pleased to have attracted into the DA liberals, conservatives, and pure centrists alike. I am always open to members of all political stripes joining the DA, granted that they generally agree with our ideas and desires.

I wrote above on my opposition to a return to two-party politics in Atlasia but my support for a strengthened multi-party system. I won't restate my comments. However, on a personal note, while I support a party that can unite members of different avatar colours, I will not join a large centre-right party. The Atlasian right includes some exceptional members which hold great ideas. However, I feel it would be betraying my true centrist values of neither left nor right to jump into a party uniting the right, even if such an idea has some merit. I am also opposed to joining a large Atlasian right common party because I strongly feel that my moderate centrist-"European right" voice would be in the minority against a larger conservative-"American right" majority. Similar to how the Canadian Progressive Conservatives were effectively squashed by the new CPC in 2003.