Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Please clear my diary for the next month.

Also... where's the money for 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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I am still very conflicted on this and need to work through it.

I'll abstain on the amendment at the moment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Aye for Senator bore's amendment


But yes, despite my remarks that I don't see any religious freedom in preaching against homosexuals or abortion, I am not the biggest fan of this, at least in the current stand. There are some parts I like, bit overall this gets to far. I'm sure however that there can be found a middle way which most are okay with.

I do see religious freedom in preaching against homosexuality and abortion. We don't preach against people. We preach against activities that will be destructive in this life and in the life to come. Do I need to site both Christian and Jewish scripture which condem both activities?

Hence why we are secular liberal democracy, freedom of religion also extends to freedom from religion. If you have those views, that's dandy and you're entitled to have them, regardless of how regressive I (and many others) view them. Our social policy should be driven by maximising inclusion in our society not creating edicts by the loudest that do nothing except exclude and prioritise the narrow views of some to the determent of others.

I don't support the Bill as it stands because I do believe in the freedoms of thought and speech. But like all courts note, all freedoms and rights are not absolute. Your rights to express your views exist until such time as you are undermining the rights others should expect in our society.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Aye for Senator bore's amendment


But yes, despite my remarks that I don't see any religious freedom in preaching against homosexuals or abortion, I am not the biggest fan of this, at least in the current stand. There are some parts I like, bit overall this gets to far. I'm sure however that there can be found a middle way which most are okay with.

I do see religious freedom in preaching against homosexuality and abortion. We don't preach against people. We preach against activities that will be destructive in this life and in the life to come. Do I need to site both Christian and Jewish scripture which condem both activities?

Hence why we are secular liberal democracy, freedom of religion also extends to freedom from religion. If you have those views, that's dandy and you're entitled to have them, regardless of how regressive I (and many others) view them. Our social policy should be driven by maximising inclusion in our society not creating edicts by the loudest that do nothing except exclude and prioritise the narrow views of some to the determent of others.

I don't support the Bill as it stands because I do believe in the freedoms of thought and speech. But like all courts note, all freedoms and rights are not absolute. Your rights to express your views exist until such time as you are undermining the rights others should expect in our society.

What other rights are in conflict with the speech that this bill would ban or limit?

Can you give me context for that question?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm referring to the final sentence of your post, i.e. "Your rights to express your views exist until such time as you are undermining the rights others should expect in our society." Does anything in this bill actually address this problem, and, if so, what other rights are being undermined in its absence?

That was a general statement, while in the same paragraph as a reference to the Bill, that sentence does not directly reference the Bill, it is a personal view or the limits and reach of one person's rights versus another's.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My concern with that clause is that it takes an exclusively female space away from women. I'm especially concerned with like, bar bathrooms and other such places where sexual assaults might rise from this

Exactly.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Polnut, a vote isn't open at the moment

However, I'm going to object to JCL's amendment.

Senators a vote is now open on JCL's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain

Sorry - that was my objection... not a vote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Aye on the amendment.

 Why should Arabic be recognized but not Hebrew? Section 2.1 must be eliminated before I'll even consider supporting this bill.  The government shouldn't be funding everyone having birth control. My tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund the consequences of a couples loose moral choices. With punishing those of us who don't want to find others having contraception. This should always be a choice of the couple with the monetary consequences for that individual couple. Don't put it on celibate singles, the lgbt, or those whose religious beliefs discourage the use of such products. There are religious rights that you guys are not considering in this case.

No one is forcing contraception on those who don't want it.

Religious freedom is not an absolute right.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Like most of this Bill, a knowledge of English, in a predominately English-speaking country is not something you should or need to require by law.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Aye

Like most of this Bill, a knowledge of English, in a predominately English-speaking country is not something you should or need to require by law.

This doesn't do that, it merely states an aspirational goal motivated by a desire to avoid future tensions between various groups within a diverse Atlasia, by encouraging inter-communication.

That's exceedingly fluffy to be put in legislation...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is certainly palatable.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

ABSTAIN

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

ABSTAIN

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There are some BIG problems with 1.4. While, obviously, the operations of Government should reflect the nation in its make up. I'm not sure the language required, would continue to support the intention of this section.

I mean, what is the definition of 'local area'? Federal juries to be selected based on those proportions? OK - but what if you have a black person accused of a crime in an all-white area. Surely that wouldn't deliver what is intended. Um... and how much land is to be handed back to Native Atlasians?

There's a lot of very good ideas in this Bill, but a TON of stuff that is unworkable, unrealistic and at best problematic.

Also, I f***ing hate the term 'heteronormative' - it's a sociological wank term and I won't vote for anything containing it, it is actually used primarily in a derogatory fashion anyway.

My view - we're tinkering with language - how about we cut the crap, find the key elements we think are workable and manageable, not based on aspiration and outline them.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I am changing my vote to abstain and am awaiting the President's re-draft on passage.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Affirmative action is something that I've supported, but not in a blanket fashion. I'm going to focus on this one for a little bit and consider where I stand on the re-draft. I was a very hesitant Aye on the original Bill.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

ABSTAIN

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I continue to be concerned about the issue of a report on reparations. Yes, a report does  not tie anyone to do anything, but the unseen (and I'm sure, to some, seen) consequences could be significant. I think there's a more realistic way to deal with this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

Which part exactly do you strongly oppose?

More of a principle issue, but I've always remained unconvinced that forcing the federal government to hire based on race or gender quotas is the best solution when it comes to this issue. It's very simplistic argument, I know, but I would rather have the best individuals hired regardless of their race/gender than have them hired because of those two conditions.

Except that some of the best candidates are never hired precisely because of their race/gender.

But isn't that kind of making policy based on trying to prove a negative?