Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: TNF

2nd part to follow

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3rd part to follow

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Proposing an amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I think this clause would basically allow abortion during the third semester, and I obviously don't support late-term abortion.

[Lumine]

I'm sorry, but this quite evidently goes way too far. I understand the motives behind this reform of civil rights, but among other things we are talking of allowing the nation to split, going against free speech, legalizing late term abortion (which I would never sign) and pursuing quite a few goals that have the potential to be a bureaucratic nightmare or seem awfully impractical.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Please clear my diary for the next month.

Also... where's the money for this?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This goes against religious freedoms and as such I will fight to destroy this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This goes against religious freedoms and as such I will fight to destroy this.

I don't like that 'religious freedom' is a convenient code word for permissible discrimination. But overall, this bill takes a good message, that we should embrace difference and reject intolerance and discrimination to an extreme.

I don't believe that can force tolerance, if it is enforced by law, then it's not real. We need to change people's minds through deed and words.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 1 -

The history of the world has been one of oppression. The difference between ourselves and past perptrators is that we seek as our objective to improve over time and one cannot seriously argue that such has not occured. Slavery was an institution the world over, and indeed after balooning it to unprecedented levels, The US/Atlasia and the former Colonial powers became the very force that brought it to an end and is still fighting it to this day in the form of human trafficking.

The way we make up for past transgression is to preserve the heritage of improving over time and by working to discourage those trangressions around the world. Dividing up and weakening the one country with the most power to combat sex slaver and other ills that still blot the eath doesn't redeem us of our bad history, on the other hand defaults on our obligation to the world imposed on us by those very transgressions.

Clause 2 is secession by another name and is thus unconstitutional. 

Section 2-4
There is absolutely no way the policing of speech and print could ever be practical. A partisan hack could merely label every opposing force as such and use this to shut them down and I don't see any amendment or wording change or special clause to address this gapping whole, just too much loopholes. It is the alien and sedition acts all over again and I am shocked such a civil libertarian as yourself thinks th gov't can enforce and police speech. The answer is education not the iron boot of a fascist police state.

Section 3-7 is abortion on demand as late as the last trimester. I am pro-life and view all abortion as the extermination of potential life, but when it comes to late term abortion it is my view that such is unequivocally murder and this clause legalizes it.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

This goes against religious freedoms and as such I will fight to destroy this.

I don't like that 'religious freedom' is a convenient code word for permissible discrimination. But overall, this bill takes a good message, that we should embrace difference and reject intolerance and discrimination to an extreme.

I don't believe that can force tolerance, if it is enforced by law, then it's not real. We need to change people's minds through deed and words.

But this, if passed, would render preaching against homosexuality or abortion as criminal offenses worth taking away the right to keep and bear arms. TNF fails to realize this is a freedom of conscience issue. Atlasians of faith will not stand for their rights of religious conscience to be violated in such manner. The bill would force tolerance down people's throats.

[Cranberry]

This goes against religious freedoms and as such I will fight to destroy this.

I don't like that 'religious freedom' is a convenient code word for permissible discrimination. But overall, this bill takes a good message, that we should embrace difference and reject intolerance and discrimination to an extreme.

I don't believe that can force tolerance, if it is enforced by law, then it's not real. We need to change people's minds through deed and words.

But this, if passed, would render preaching against homosexuality or abortion as criminal offenses worth taking away the right to keep and bear arms. TNF fails to realize this is a freedom of conscience issue. Atlasians of faith will not stand for their rights of religious conscience to be violated in such manner. The bill would force tolerance down people's throats.

You know how the saying goes - "one's freedom goes as far as it limits one other's". There is a difference between "religious freedom" and preaching against homosexuality or abortion. The latter is not religious freedom, it is bigotry and defamation.

[TNF]

Windjammer's proposed amendment is unfriendly.

The point of this bill is to safeguard the civil rights of those that are discriminated against and oppressed in society on account of their race, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. I do not believe that Nazis or other bigots have anymore right to propagate their vile, hate speech than I believe a man has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater, because the two actions are one in the same.

[bore]

A vote is now open on windjammer's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain

[windjammer]

Aye,
Sorry, I don't support late term abortion

[bore]

You know the way you phrased this amendment till stops any restrictions on abortion, as you still have this clause:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[windjammer]

Oh my god,
I'm sorry.

I withdraw my amendment if it is possible. I thought it deleted this part correctly, sorry, I was really tired

[bore]

I'm withdrawing windjammer's amendment using this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And proposing my own amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

For one thing we already have basically legal abortion barring extreme late term so all this would do is legalise them, and for another I'm convinced this is an issue like most social issues that should be left to the regions, for the sake of the game.

[Bacon King]

I actually really like some parts of this bill, but I find that other parts are a bit odd. Here's a quick list of my concerns, comments, and questions for the sponsor:

1. I'm not opposed to Section 1, per se, but I believe it would be more appropriate as a Constitutional amendment. As is, it appears to be unconstitutional, because allowing secession via self-determination would violate Article IV's requirement that anything changing regional boundaries must have the consent of the region(s) in question. I also have concerns that it violates Article V's equal protection clause, because it specifically enumerates self-determination for only a select group of minorities while excluding others.

2. I'm concerned that there is no definition of race. Like, is anything stopping Afrikaner Atlasians from participating in the African Atlasian self-determination process? Can we rely on self-identification alone without risking the possibility of fraud? If not, how can we define racial categories fairly and in a non-discriminatory fashion?

3. I'm sympathetic to prohibiting extreme forms of hate speech, but the zero-tolerance approach taken here seems rather excessive.

4. What's the deal with prosecuting stuff as "aiding the enemy during wartime" and via "anti-terrorism statutes"?

5. The Postal Service stuff - is the intention to directly prohibit the post office from sending hateful stuff (as opposed to criminalizing it as a type of mail fraud or something for an individual to do it)? If so, that would be a huge privacy concern because it seems to be forcing the post office to open everyone's envelopes in order to ensure they aren't transporting prohibited material

6. I'm sympathetic to the principle of reparations, but under this bill's guidelines we'd literally be spending up to $1.26 trillion on them in just the first year. There's got to be a better way to do it than that. I'd like to see a Commission that allocates reparations owed by the Atlasian Government, the European nations whose colonial governments allowed slavery to exist prior to 1776, and the private and corporate entities who profited from the slave trade. Then the funds should go to a Humanitarian Trust Fund as proposed by the Restitution Study Group, that would use the money to most effectively fix the negative repercussions of slavery that remain to this day.

edit- and given the diffiulty of tracing ancestry back that far, I'd like to see a SOIA pogram funded to help people investigate their ancestries, or something

7. I'd be careful with the wording of Section 3, Clause 7, to clarify that abolishing all restrictions on birth control and abortions doesn't like abolish requirements that abortions have to be done by licensed medical professionals or anything crazy like that

8. Section 3, Clause 15 should specify that the government provides a reimbursement for the emergency contraceptives, to make sure we aren't implying we're forcing stores to give it away for free.

9. I dislike the affirmative action with strict quotas based on the proportion of total population. If we're going to go that route, at the very least base it on the proportion of the population in that job field.

10. I'm opposed to the prohibition on gendered restrooms because forcing women to use the same restroom as men seems discriminatory and potentially problematic to me

I can offer some amendments if there's genuine interest towards collaborating on a proposal that will pass.

[windjammer]

Thank you Senator bore

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I have offered to work with interested parties to make this into something that can actually pass.

[Deus Naturae]

Well, I oppose this since I don't support throwing people in rape cages for expressing their opinions. The "fire in a theater" argument is meaningless since theaters are private buildings and private property owners already have the right to expel racists and the like from their property if they so choose.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does the a Senator is so dubious about the ability of the gov't to enforce anything, view it as practical to enforce thought and speech?

I'm withdrawing windjammer's amendment using this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And proposing my own amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For one thing we already have basically legal abortion barring extreme late term so all this would do is legalise them, and for another I'm convinced this is an issue like most social issues that should be left to the regions, for the sake of the game.
[/quote]

What is the downside of leavin them to the regions? The new strong man of the Mideast is Windjammer, not Zuwo.

[windjammer]

Really nice from your part Yankee .

[Deus Naturae]

How does the a Senator is so dubious about the ability of the gov't to enforce anything, view it as practical to enforce thought and speech?
[quote]
I don't (assuming this refers to me). My point is that the "shouting fire" argument isn't really applicable as someone who was shouting racial slurs in a private business would be kicked out with or without this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does the a Senator is so dubious about the ability of the gov't to enforce anything, view it as practical to enforce thought and speech?

I don't (assuming this refers to me). My point is that the "shouting fire" argument isn't really applicable as someone who was shouting racial slurs in a private business would be kicked out with or without this bill.

I was referring to the sponsor who has led the drive to legalize most every drug immaginable on the grounds that the laws cannot and should not be enforced against them and now thinks speech and thought can be. Sorry for not making that clear.