[SEMI-PUBLIC] General Assembly Term IX

[The_Hawk]

"Actually, Per Recyznski," Tilly says coldly, "I believe Per Gonzov made many of the same comments I did -- in short, that your definitions are broad enough to drive a truck through. Yet his are input, and mine are not constructive?

"Fine. Here's constructive criticism for you. Your bill hasn't been seconded, and given the commentary so far, I don't see it happening. We've wasted too much time on it already. Let's move along.

"And for future reference, Per Recyznski, there's no reason you can't get MGA commentary on finished legislation, instead of submitting half-written bills and expecting more experienced legislators to finish them for you. In fact, maybe you'll even get something passed that way."

 

[Josephus I]

"I suppose that explains it," Kazimierz laughed very softly, trying to do anything to get the tension out of him, "I must admit I was very surprised when I saw your name on an anti-socialist bill. Nonetheless, your criticism of my bill is not constructive whatsoever. You merely say it's a 'crappy' bill, you don't even mention one specific problem with it. Perhaps it would be better for Eutopia if you would give a constructive opinion once in a while instead of merely spouting insults at your fellow MGAs."

Fair enough Mr. Kazimierz. For starters, perhaps, I don't understand the nature of the Bill. You say it is a reform of RUBB, but, yet, it seems to be a reform of Welfare.

RUBB--or the Unemployment Benefits Bill, -- deals with a temporary fix for people who are unemployed due to economic conditions. This, I agree, should be a temporary fix to keep people on their feet until they find a new job. Welfare, on the other hand, deals with those unfortunates, who are unable to find work for whatever reason and have exhausted the Unemployment Benefits entitled to them.

If it is the latter you intend to fix, it would help if you clarify that.

In terms of RUBB, I actually have a proposal in mind. I'm just waiting on an old friend to give me his advice on it.

Josephus

 

[Sterkarm]

"Yes, Mr. Sergei, I made a mistake there. I tried to merge RUBB and Welfare, but, that was faulty. I have made adjustments and have renamed the bill. As for your proposal for RUBB, I am glad to hear that there is more legislation in the making."

 

[The_Hawk]

"I'll give you a C+ for effort, Per Recyznski, but it's not good enough. What's a 'family'? Is a single mother a family? What about a homosexual couple in a civil union, with children? How does one determine when one 'cannot work in another field'? With the exception of a small handful of unfortunate souls -- who I agree wholeheartedly we should help -- most everyone is capable of working at some job, many of them untrained, but I doubt you really want to force experienced labors into low-paying service sector jobs, or only benefit the cripplingly injured. At least, I hope you don't.

"Two steps forward, Per Recyznski, but you need about a thousand more."

 

[unmerged(228)]

Mr. Recyznski, I suggest you to let the RUBB matter fall. There is no fame or glory for you to attain here.

Regarding the OurTime Bill, Mr. Langley, if the 'crowding out' effect of government spending is the replacement of private spending by government spending, then the 'crowding out' effect is essentially the same as competition between the government and the private sector. So if we financially support one company in competing with another, we are actually crowding out the competition of the one company. Maybe we can offer support to other companies for the purposes of debt reduction only.

 

[Craig Ashley]

These are two seperate issues. Government spending crowding out private spending is simply reshuffling where the ducats come from - often adding additional government overhead.

Competition is a cornerstone of the capitalist system. There are numerous ways this could be achieved. We could make OurTime breaking itself up a condition of government assistance. We could enact strict anti-trust legislation and rely upon the courts to break up OurTime and other potential monopolies. However, OurTime is already fragile enough, and I don't think it is wise to make the company endure such a harsh, sudden and dramatic transition. So I've opted to add clauses to the bill that will encourage competitors to join the Eutopian market. Competition will force all the companies involved to operate at peak efficiency, offer the best service for the lowest possible price, and to fully utilize their available resources. Competition encourages advancement and research.

I ask that some one please formally second this bill so it can be called to a vote.

 

[Josephus I]

I believe Per Tulp has seconded this Bill already.

Josephus

 

[Craig Ashley]

So he has. My mistake.

Mr. Speaker, the bill has been seconded and discussed, I ask that it be called to a vote.

 

[unmerged(228)]

These are two seperate issues. Government spending crowding out private spending is simply reshuffling where the ducats come from - often adding additional government overhead.

Well, we are creating extra government overhead, and we are creating a situation in which government money is used by other companies to compete with Ourtime, which benefits from our money also, so I can't say I'm too happy about this.

Competition is a cornerstone of the capitalist system. There are numerous ways this could be achieved. We could make OurTime breaking itself up a condition of government assistance. We could enact strict anti-trust legislation and rely upon the courts to break up OurTime and other potential monopolies. However, OurTime is already fragile enough, and I don't think it is wise to make the company endure such a harsh, sudden and dramatic transition. So I've opted to add clauses to the bill that will encourage competitors to join the Eutopian market. Competition will force all the companies involved to operate at peak efficiency, offer the best service for the lowest possible price, and to fully utilize their available resources. Competition encourages advancement and research.

I agree with your analysis, Ourtime can't handle a breakup. Since your draft also includes a financial limit I will support your draft.

I ask that some one please formally second this bill so it can be called to a vote.

Yes, discussion has taken enough of our time, the draft is now up for vote. I've shortened the title of the draft to ORSSA.

MGA's, the debate on VAT is slowing down, maybe the advocates of VAT should go through their idea's once more and present a final proposal.

 

[Sterkarm]

"I believe that we should have a short moment of silence in memory of our dear compatriot, VP Konstantin Vilms, honorable Eutopian politician and citizen."

 

[Sterkarm]

*after the moment of silence*

"My fellow Eutopians, I believe we should address the ban on Muslim headscarves in Nouvelle Aquitaine. This is a horrible intolerant attack on the Muslims of our great nation. All should be able to choose their own way of expressing their religion, unless it is harmful or threatening to the people or government of Eutopia or other nations. We cannot allow such intolerance within our school systems. What are the thoughts of others on the subject?"

 

[Sterkarm]

"Also, after reconsideration, I have decided to defer to Minister Langley on the matter of the VAT. He is right that opposing policies are bad for the economy, and I shall support him in his economic policy, especially ORSSA. Therefore, I shall drop the VAT bill."

 

[Josephus I]

*after the moment of silence*

"My fellow Eutopians, I believe we should address the ban on Muslim headscarves in Nouvelle Aquitaine. This is a horrible intolerant attack on the Muslims of our great nation. All should be able to choose their own way of expressing their religion, unless it is harmful or threatening to the people or government of Eutopia or other nations. We cannot allow such intolerance within our school systems. What are the thoughts of others on the subject?"

Hear hear. This is a gross violation of religous freedoms. We should not stand for it.

Josephus

 

[Sterkarm]

Religious Tolerance Amendment

I. The decision by the provincial school system in Nouvelle Aquitaine to ban Muslim headscarves in school is hereby reversed as it violates Articles A6, A7, and A27 of the Eutopian Charter of Rights.

II. All citizens shall be allowed to express their religion in any way not considered to be offensive towards others, including non-Eutopians.

III. Offensive is defined (for the purposes of Article II) as insulting another religion, threatening/encouraging/enacting violence, attack, or persecution against certain groups, depicting symbols meant to insinuate bigotry or other prejudice/discrimination, or destruction/defacation of public and/or private property. It is also defined as violating Article A12 of the Eutopian Charter of Rights.

IV. Religious expression cannot be taken away by government officials or fellow citizens, provincial or federal except when such expression is offensive as defined in Article III of this act.

I would bring this bill to the Assembly's attention in order to deal with the ban on Muslim headscarves in Nouvelle Aquitaine. Even though it is a provincial school system, it is not allowable for the government, provincial or federal, to infringe upon the rights set out by the Eutopian Charter of Rights, and Articles A6, A7, and A27 are violated by this wanton act of intolerance.

 

[Sterkarm]

"One more thing we may want to consider... there are many foreign car manufacturers bidding for a factory in Tilapia, perhaps we could convince them to do otherwise? Maybe encourage them to start a factory here in the UPE with incentives, tax breaks, etc.?

 

[Josephus I]

I second the RTA, Mr. Speaker. This is a worthy piece of legislation. We can't let independent school boards ban students for wearing religious iconography.

Josephus

 

[The_Hawk]

I would bring this bill to the Assembly's attention in order to deal with the ban on Muslim headscarves in Nouvelle Aquitaine.

I am a firm believer in the protection of our personal rights and liberties as entrenched in our constitutional order. It is, unfortunately, because of my belief in that order that I cannot support this measure. While I firmly believe the actions of Nouvelle Aquitaine to be unconstitutional, I do not believe it is the place of the General Assembly to rule on the constitutionality of such actions. Such decisions are reserved to the High Court and the High Court alone. We may, of course, overrule the High Court by dint of an amendment, but it is inappropriate to do so when the Court has not even heard the case.

This is particularly true when the actions of Nouvelle Aquitaine on this matter are prima facie unconstitutional, and I cannot see any other conclusion being reached by the High Court. Thus, the High Court's decision will serve exactly the ends we desire without forcing us to amend the constitution. Indeed, to do so is an exceptionally dangerous path, as the RTA as proposed conflicts with other constitutional sections; specifically, it strips provinces of complete control of education, and restrains speech by a broad definition of "offensive", thus violating Section 7 of the ECR at the same time it attempts to uphold it.

I do not contend that the High Court ruling will not have these same impacts, but a court decision is a very different thing from a constitutional amendment. We should allow the High Court to do their jobs.

 

[Sterkarm]

The issue has been brought up many times, and we need to end this oppression now! A high court decision would take months, maybe years, during which time the Muslims of our country will continue to be oppressed and will lose faith in this government. Besides, a High Court ruling cannot change the constitution completely, only for that specific case. We must change the constitution permanently to ensure this does not happen again.

 

[The_Hawk]

It should never have happened in the first place, Per Recyznski. It's obviously violative of Articles 6 and 27 of the Eutopian Charter of Rights. Changing the constitution isn't going to make it more illegal.

What's needed isn't constitutional revision, it's the provincial government of Nouvelle Aquitaine following the constitution. I call on my dear friend Per O'Floinn to expedite the cases which have doubtless been filed regarding this matter to the High Court.

 

[Sterkarm]

"Regardless, Mr. Tilly, I believe the Constitution itself needs to elaborate on this issue, and I believe we are the ones who should do it. The more clear the actual Constitution is, the less likely it is that future officials will enact such decisions. Something must be done about this, and soon, lest we forget about this issue amongst others.

The High Court has done nothing since the new constitution was instituted, and an issue of this magnitude is not a good first case for them. Again, the longer we wait, the more restless and disillusioned the Muslims of Eutopia become, as they very well should be after this grevious assault on their honor."