Loewen Executive Proposal: Aye
I would also like to withdraw the Savarin Amendment to the King of the Belgians Proposal and the Savarin Legislature of Belgium Plan. The Armed Forces of Belgium article shall, for now, remain on the table.
Gentlemen, I apologize for my absence. I know that it is late, so I must return in the morning, but first I must look over the minutes.
Monseiur Loewen, thank you for taking my input into consideration. I truly must commend you and your ability to compromise. All I can add is that, after some discussion with Monseiur Van Brabant, we took a liking to having the Lower House be the "House of Delegates" and the members being Delegates. I am not particularly fond of the name "Chamber of Deputies," as it sounds rather subservient in nature, but substantively your proposal is clearly the way forward. Fundamentally, do not listen to those who ask the restriction of universal suffrage. We have given them much, and yet all they do is ask for more. We must remain firm. Our revolution occurred in large part because of treacherous Dutch attempts to deny us our voting rights. Let us not fall into the same tyranny by implementing any restrictions on suffrage. Equal suffrage for all, I say!
Monseiur Daret, your Bill of Rights is still an excellent document in all respects but one. I must say that clause V.a, as written, is simply too rife with potential for abuse as written. An unscrupulous government would surely find ways to misuse this provision, and that is a check that I feel both the liberals and monarchists can support. I would either strike said article entirely or enumerate the most specific threats as below:
V.a Government censorship of the press may only occur upon the issuance of a warrant, at the request of the [lower house] by a majority vote and approval by the Supreme Court, and only in the following cases:
- Speech promoting the dissolution of the Belgian state into separate states or the secession of any part of the Belgium state
- Speech advocating the annexation of Belgium or parts of Belgium by any foreign power
- Speech advocating the persecution of any ethnic, national or religious minority within Belgium
Of the judicial proposals currently on the floor, I like the looks of M. Galler's. I had my own proposal but had lost my notes ((the post updater did not save it and it didn't post right the first time,)) so I must submit it in the morning. In the meantime, while the Galler proposal could be made more comprehensive, that can be easily fixed and I like the basic proposals in the document. I think that Senatorial review is more than enough for higher court appointments, however. Both the executive and legislature are already involved deeply in the process as is, and allowing the King control over appointments is only going to stuff the courts with men loyal to the King. Justice is blind, gentlemen. No one - not the clergy, not the aristocracy, not the king, no one - must be above the law.
I whole-heartedly improve of the intent of Monseiur Aerts' act, but cannot back its wording. I agree that no official shall be above the law, and having government officials step down while implicated in a trial is a wise move. Be that as it may, the Executive Article that has passed already contains conflicting information regarding the removal of Prime Minister and King, and this article must be revised accordingly. A different mechanism to impeach the King is certainly workable, but it must agree with our agreed-upon constitution. I shall discuss it more tomorrow.
Finally, I must turn my attention to the proposal of Bishop van Buskirk. All clauses therein except the last, which is of course implicit in the nature of any Bill of Rights, are totally unacceptable.
Article I is either already guaranteed under the mandate of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights or infringing upon it, depending on whether the Gospel is preached peacefully or, shall we say, aggressively. As you are an honorable man, I will assume the former. That being the case, such a mandate is superfluous. If were were to entertain the idea that it is the latter, then that would infringe on the freedom of others to practice religions of their choice. We personally may be Catholics, monseiur, but there are Protestants and Jews among the Belgian people as well. They are as much entitled to freedom of religion as anyone, and preventing potentially unscrupulous forces from using dishonorable means to "spread the gospel" to them must be a right reserved by the state.
I will return to Article II in a moment.
Article III is absurd, frankly. What would you think if an unscrupulous, fabulously wealthy businessman had a convenient "change of heart" and joined the clergy for tax purposes? Not only is there potential for such abuse but it shatters the idea of equality before the law. As all men are equal before God, all are equal before the law, including tax law. I am no supporter of high taxes, infringing on personal freedom and the advancement out of squalor as they are, but do support a tax regime that affects all citizens to some degree, for the sake of fairness. If I proposed an article eliminating taxes on merchants, for example, it would be good for me, but it would not be fair. I follow the same logic here.
Article IV also violates equality before the law. I do not frankly understand the purpose of such a tribunal, but it must not be made to have any legal weight. If the church wants a tribunal, it may hold one - on private grounds, with private money, and neither dispensing nor recommending any form of vigilante justice other than what is strictly within the Church's power to do, such as removing a man from his clerical office. The clergy are valuable citizens of Belgium. Thus, they are just like everyone else.
Finally, with regards to Article II, I will simply respond by telling a story.
Two years ago, I was a sergeant in the revolutionary forces. (I would be a captain by the war's end, but that was not the case yet.) We had met the Dutch in a pitched battle about a day's march south of Hainaut. We were marching back to camp to tend to the wounded, when I saw a man under a friend's command being taken to a medical tent. I had seen him around camp before - he looked old enough to be my father and seemed to be badly wounded. Curious, I walked into the medical tent to speak to him. The doctors said he would be dead in an hour and there was little they could do. The old man asked if I was a priest. I shook my head and turned to leave, assuming he wanted one, when he motioned me to stay. He told me that his name was Gunther - a German immigrant, I believe - and he was from a village in East Flanders called Bruhl that was home to a little over one hundred people, including fifty-two men. When he heard that the revolution came, he and every other man in his village had joined up. He said that his country meant enough to him that he would take the risk of signing himself and his village off to doom if it meant he could see his homeland be free. He told me how he prayed that his village could soon return home to build a better life once we had our freedom.
He sighed and told me he was the last one from his village left. I didn't know what to say.
The doctors came back in with a chaplain to give the man his last rites. I left to give them their privacy. It was only the next day I learned that, miraculously, he had survived the night. The shrapnel had not moved in towards his heart but stopped short, allowing the doctors to remove it. The surgeons got him walking in two weeks and he was discharged to go home to Bruhl. For lack of a better word, he was saved by the grace of God.
Why did I tell you all this? If Gunther can sacrifice his entire village, his entire way of life, for the cause of our great nation, must not every man do his part? We do not ask of the clergy to enter combat. We ask them to give as all other Belgian men must do - the gift of their service, valuable as any other. Would a man of God ask for any less than the ability to serve those who need it most? War tears towns apart. Everyone is hurt, and it is the only honorable thing to do to have everyone serve to try to end the pain as quickly as possible. I know that their roles are crucial, but can it be said that any other man in the village is less crucial? Is that a Christian way to live? Bishop, I have seen my friends torn apart by artillery fire and I have heard men howl into the night to be put out of their misery. Do you think anyone wants that as their lot in life? I could have stayed in Orleans after university as a successful businessman with a wonderful lady-friend and more material wealth than I could have ever dreamed of as a boy. Instead, I chose not to abandon my country and my countrymen in their hour of need. I know you claim that you are needed at home. So are so many good men who died, and we are not even asking you to risk your lives as they had. Did Jesus serve the needy from far away? No, he mingled with them, lived with them, and fought for them. He served by example. All we ask is that the clergymen of Belgium do the same.
I must now retire for the evening. Good night, gentlemen.
Savarin walks out of the convention hall, exhausted and visibly shaking from lack of sleep.
.png){kind=avatar}
