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

[windjammer]

Devin???

[windjammer]

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.

[windjammer]

And once again, the Alping is here for debates, so you have clearly the right to participate to the debates Maxwell, other Atlasians as well.

[windjammer]

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?

[windjammer]

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!

[windjammer]

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?

[windjammer]

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.

Our legal system won't implode because of that! Hates crimes law are necessary. The other aspect is of course symbolic. If you push for hate crimes laws about homosexuality, it just shows a desire made by the Midwest Government to fight against that. Symbols are a large part of politics too!

With or without this part, I will still sign this bill though.

[windjammer]

Brewer?

[windjammer]

If you look at my amendment, you see why I oppose the bill. I have a fundamental opposition to hate crime laws, and that's really all there is to it.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wanted to say. When will you propose your amendment?
I support hate crime laws, but in order to pass this bill, I'm willing to compromise. So I'm waiting for your amendment!

[windjammer]

I propose an amendment to eliminate Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 2. A crime is a crime, and the status quo should be preserved in this instance. Hate crime laws criminalize thought, do they not?

I encourage you to do something like that when you want to propose an amendment. Thanks, it can be a bit confusing!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Adam C. FitzGerald

[windjammer]

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?

[windjammer]

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!

[windjammer]

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.

I still believe in the Alito's interpretation.

[windjammer]

Can Arturo call a vote?

[windjammer]

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.

No way. This is a small region. I was Archduke before being Governor, and I began my term with 2 representatives often missing votes. It's the best way to slow Althing's work.
And an another note, the fact that there is no rule allows Arturo to block the vote when he wants. With "real rules", it would have been impossible.

[windjammer]

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.

Well, as  Archduke, I have worked without rules without problems. I don't think Brewer, Cris, or anything else could seriously criticize my job as Archduke.
Amendments have always been respected. I have always followed what Yankee did for senate:
-Representatives or anything else had 24/48 hour to oppose (opposition= a vote, no opposition= no vote).
What you're doing is to totally blame the Althing's work since your election just for one mistake that has made Arturo. Arturo is a recent Archduke, he has to adapt himself to the new situation. The job of Archduke is the most difficult. Ii should have sent him a PM earlier in order to explain him what exactly I was doing as Archduke (my rules,...). We don't need official rules, because yes, it would slow the Althing's work, like sometimes in the Atlasia senate where some senators miss the vote,...
I have sponsored some bills improving the current situation: the creation of the Chief Justice Official, the creation of the President Pro Tempore, and soon the possibility for the governor to make a redraft.

The problem isn't the lack of official rules, it's more because Arturo has to learn experience. And this episode will definitely improve his capacity of leading the Althing, especially in case of an amendment. He knows right now what he has to do when we have an amendment. He's a good Archduke, and he will become better with experience.
Real rules will change nothing, except some court cases for cancelling a vote.

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

Oh please, you don't believe your words yourself. You have always liked the office of Midwest Governor. I expect you will be running against me in the next gubernational race, it's not because of Althing rules issues.
And, you're not the savior of the Midwest anymore. The Midwest isn't inactive anymore, we have passed a lot of bills during your absence, you can verify by yourself and I won't let you take a small mistake made by Arturo for building your next political campaign.

[windjammer]

Because this is unnecessary and nocive.
More the Archduke has liberty, better it is. He just has to know what he has to do.
Nocive because this will definitely slow even more the Althing's job without resolving any problems, creating other problems. I don't want to have bills being invalidated because "Representatives hadn't had 24 hour to change their vote",  because "1 Representative had missed the vote", because "1 representative had failed to vote in time".

[windjammer]

Well, time to speak about this law again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally I consider this is a good compromise.

[windjammer]

Is there an another amendment or can Arturo call the final vote?