The Rights of LGBTQIA People in the EU.



  • Bill to Protect or Grant Rights to LGBTQIA People in the EU

    Article I: Purposes and Definitons

    Section I:

    (i) LGBTQIA stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisesexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex and asexual. This bill would serve to protect this minority group in the EU by either granting them the rights they need or preserving the rights they already have.

    Article II: Regulations

    Section I: Same Sex Marriage

    (i) It is unlawful for member states to deny LGBTQIA people the right to marry.
    (ii) Religious groups who do not wish to perform these marriages do not have to do so.

    Section II: Sex Changing Drugs and Sex Change Operations

    (i) Transgender people might want to use sex changing drugs and this must be legal and safe. This is important because this must be a basic human right.

    Section III: LGBTQIA Youth

    (i) Youth should be allowed to be safe at school without bullying for who they are and schools should campaign for anti-bullying overall.
    (ii) Schools should allow Counsellors into schools to see bullied LGBT Children.
    (iii) Youths should be educated on Sexualities and to not discriminate against them.

    Article III: Implementation

    Section I

    (i) This Act must be implemented in all EU Countries if Passed over a period of a month.
    (ii) The passing of this Act will overwrite any existing legislation regarding rights for LGBT individuals.


  • Commission

    In principal the Government of Davishire is fully in favour of legislation of this type and LGBT persons already have full rights across the commonwealth. Our analysists shall be pouring over this to see if any improvements could be made.



  • This is actually already Groot-Belgain law. SO we vote FOR this act



  • Peter Montfort took the floor.

    "First, I'll go through some of the main technical problems with this Act, that this Council may wish to consider amending, before moving on to principle. First, Article 1 - LGBTQIA people are many minorities, not a single one, hence the acronym. Article 2.1, on marriage, does not specify that people can get married to people of the same sex. It merely states that LGBTQIA folk can't be banned from getting married, which I doubt is what the Act intends to do. It's also vague on 'legal age'. The word "should" in Articles 3 and 4 is a loophole waiting to happen - stronger language is required for this Act to have any force. This must or this shall be legal, this is a human right, and so on and soforth. Weasel words get us nowhere. Article 4.1 is vague - how does one "allow" kids to be "safe at school without bullying for who they are?" What would count as contradicting that, and who would be liable? Will we have school bullies before the ECoJ, or the headteacher - indeed, for that matter, this Act does not make clear what sanctions are to be applied against those who contravene it, and by whom. Article 4.2 does not clarify what one means by 'counsellors', and Article 4.3 does not tell us what counts as "educat[ion] on sexualities". Finally, Article 5.2 is a real horror - it would not only strip away all existing gay rights legislation and most likely make their legal status worse across the Union, but also could invalidate many nations' Constitutions, which enshrine things like equality under the law that do relate to gay rights, and could even see us have to bin the UDoHR."

    "Anyway, on to the principle of the matter. The first thing is that, if its intention is what I assume it to be, Angleter cannot support an Act that imposes same-sex marriage on the entire European Union. We would be willing to support some sort of compromise that enshrines gay couples' rights to see each other in hospital, be treated on the same level as married couples financially if they so wish, and so on, but Europolis-imposed same-sex marriage is a bridge too far. One many also wish to consider that some nations have no concept, or a radically alternative concept, of marriage, and take that into account when rewriting or amending this Act. As I said, I think Articles 4.1 and 4.2 are best dealt with as a general anti-bullying issue, and I think anti-bullying itself is not something that needs legislating for at a European level. Article 4.3, teaching non-discrimination, is laudable on the face of it, but more zealous definitions of 'teaching non-discrimination' could verge dangerously on ideological indoctrination in schools, and I think we'd do well to avoid that being virtually allowed on a European scale. And finally, my qualms with Article 5.2 have already been expressed."

    "So, in closing, I feel this Act could be written much better to avoid loopholes and get its intentions across better, but in any case, Angleter shall be voting against it."



  • QUOTE (Davishire @ May 27th, 2014 - 20:15)

    In principal the Government of Davishire is fully in favour of legislation of this type and LGBT persons already have full rights across the commonwealth. Our analysists shall be pouring over this to see if any improvements could be made.

    Transgender Woman, Mrs Beatrice Smith and Chief EU Councillor for Icholasen takes the floor
    QUOTE

    In principal the Government of Davishire is fully in favour of legislation of this type and LGBT persons already have full rights across the commonwealth. Our analysists shall be pouring over this to see if any improvements could be made.

    "The Law States that its purpose is to "The Purpose of this Bill is to Grant or Secure the rights of LGBTQIA (For short LGBT+) people in the EU." which should obviously mean that as Groot Belgie said that it's already law and that means that you agree with it. I understand that you want changed to be made, and changes will be reviewed and considered."
    Mrs Smith then addresses the Angleter Councillor Pete Montfort
    "We would be happy to write a new Act with you, with the specifications you desire. I really understand your point, I think Marriage across the EU is too far, and that's what we're trying to iron out. We have made some adjustments under what you have said and we appreciate how you have tried to help, however the United Kingdom of Icholasen will not take it down."



  • The delegation of Miraco votes FOR the proposed act. We would also wish to suggest an addition to the act whereby members of the European Union must recognise same-sex marriages performed in other nations; we must clarify that this does not require member nations to allow same-sex marriages within their nations, only that they must recognise them when performed in nations in which same-sex marriage is allowed.



  • QUOTE (Miraco @ May 28th, 2014 - 12:35)

    The delegation of Miraco votes FOR the proposed act. We would also wish to suggest an addition to the act whereby members of the European Union must recognise same-sex marriages performed in other nations; we must clarify that this does not require member nations to allow same-sex marriages within their nations, only that they must recognise them when performed in nations in which same-sex marriage is allowed.

    It will be done.


  • Mass Effect RP

    ((OOC: First off you shouldn't simply edit your post and amend the bill that way. If changes are to be made to the bill, they must be proposed and voted on by the council. You can't just edit the post to take bits out or change others. This bill is entirely different from what Angleter responded to, and as such his response would make no sense to someone reading this thread in the future.))

    Before I present my views on this bill, which will come at a later time, I would remind my colleagues from Groot Belgie and Miraco that it is not the time to be voting for or against. However, there is certainly confusion with the timings the councillor from Icholasen has provided. The debating phase should last no longer than two days, unless an extension is sought from the speaker. As such, we should begin voting on amendments at 21:04 GMT on 29/5/14. Final voting on the bill should begin at 21:04 GMT on 31/5/14, ending three days later at 21:04 GMT on 3/6/14. I would ask the speaker to verify that these timings are indeed correct.



  • QUOTE (Halsberg @ May 28th, 2014 - 12:55)

    ((OOC: First off you shouldn't simply edit your post and amend the bill that way. If changes are to be made to the bill, they must be proposed and voted on by the council. You can't just edit the post to take bits out or change others. This bill is entirely different from what Angleter responded to, and as such his response would make no sense to someone reading this thread in the future.))

    Before I present my views on this bill, which will come at a later time, I would remind my colleagues from Groot Belgie and Miraco that it is not the time to be voting for or against. However, there is certainly confusion with the timings the councillor from Icholasen has provided. The debating phase should last no longer than two days, unless an extension is sought from the speaker. As such, we should begin voting on amendments at 21:04 GMT on 29/5/14. Final voting on the bill should begin at 21:04 GMT on 31/5/14, ending three days later at 21:04 GMT on 3/6/14. I would ask the speaker to verify that these timings are indeed correct.

    ((OOC: This is my first time and I am very much new to this, so I'm sorry if I have done stuff wrong and I feel really bad now))

    Your voting times are the official ones.


  • Mass Effect RP

    I thank the councillor for her acceptance of the new time periods.

    Moving on to the bill itself, and the element upon which most of this act is based: the legalisation of same-sex marriage across the European Union. I am of course assuming that that was the desired intention, because as had been said previously, as written the act does not do that. While we have not yet decided whether we would support legalisation of same sex marriage across Europe, we would propose the following:

    QUOTE

    Section I: Same Sex Marriage

    (i) Member states who have not already done so must introduce full marriage equality between same-sex and differing-sex couples.
    (ii) Religious groups who do not wish to perform or recognise same-sex marriages have the right to refuse to do so.

    Article II, Section II also needs work. Again, we are not completely convinced as to merits of this section, but are open to the idea should Councillor Smith elaborate on its contents. I propose the following amendment:

    QUOTE

    Section II: Sex Changing Drugs and Sex Change Operations

    (i) Drugs whose sole purposes are to change the sex of an individual are to be made available to patients throughout the European Union.

    We are most certainly not convinced by Article II, Section III. As Councillor Montfort rightly said, will we have school bullies before the ECoJ? Certainly, bullying in school is an issue that must be tackled, but I fail to see the need for it to be addressed in this chamber. I don't believe that this section is necessary at all and to that end I propose an amendment which removes Section III altogether.

    QUOTE

    Section III: LGBTQIA Youth

    (i) Youth should be allowed to be safe at school without bullying for who they are and schools should campaign for anti-bullying overall.
    (ii) Schools should allow Counsellors into schools to see bullied LGBT Children.
    (iii) Youths should be educated on Sexualities and to not discriminate against them.

    Finally, Article III most definitely needs a fair few changes. As Councillor Montfort said, Section I, Line 2, while evidently well intended, would have the exact opposite of the desired effect. Instead of removing anti-gay legislation, it removes all legislation in that area, including those that are positive. Therefore, I propose my final amendment:

    QUOTE

    Article III: Implementation

    Section I

    (i) All member nations of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in 6 months of time from its approval by the European Council.
    (ii) The passing of this Act will overwrite any existing legislation regarding rights for LGBT individuals.

    Section II

    (i)Violations of this act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.



  • "Altha is certainly one of the most liberal nations in the Union, having allowed gay marriages since its birth. We have kept to our religion, our values among these chiefly being equality, but we do not wish to see this shoved in the faces of others who may not have the same values. It is Altha's opinion as long as something does not hurt another human being or oppress them, an opinion should not be shoved down a person's throat so to speak.

    Based on these principles, this act so horribly broad its true intention may be lost in the wind. For example Article II, Section III is totally and horribly unnecessary, why should the EU dictate the national standards in schools, and call for what programs to be in place. Only national and not even always then know how to handle the schooling needs of their nations.

    I applaud the efforts of the Councillor of halsberg on trying to make this act more focused on a single united issue, but in my opinion and that of my nation the act is a lost cause and I will vote against it no matter what. this isn't out of hate or bias it is simply out of logic. These are national issues present, no where in our Declaration of Human rights does it say sex changing drugs are a basic human right, they are a privilege so to speak. Much like marriage, it is not a basic human right it is a privilege that wouldn't be an issue at all if nations didn't give tax benefits to nations.

    The act is overall, too broad, short, and vague on everything. It is trying to fit too much in a single act, most of which can be made in multiple acts and can cover more specific issues related to the articles. As it stands and would stand, Altha would be against this act. It may be the right thing, but logically it creates problems and abuses national sovereignty. I plead for nations not to blindly say yes to this act and force down the throats of others this act which many might not wish."

    Anatolius Eustorgios



  • The Icholasen Councillors comes to the stand:
    To quote Section I:
    QUOTE

    Section I: Same Sex Marriage

    (i) Member states who have not already done so must introduce full marriage equality between same-sex and differing-sex couples.
    (ii) Religious groups who do not wish to perform or recognise same-sex marriages have the right to refuse to do so.

    We agree with this amendment to the original document, however full marriage equality would be difficult because some nations don't have the culture of Marriage, but I do agree with it, I think Angleter might wish to debate this.

    QUOTE

    Drugs whose sole purposes are to change the sex of an individual are to be made available to patients throughout the European Union safely, freely and confidentially.

    We propose that it should be safe, freely and confidentially, to add more detail.

    QUOTE

    Section III: LGBTQIA Youth

    (i) Youth should be allowed to be safe at school without bullying for who they are and schools should campaign for anti-bullying overall.
    (ii) Schools should allow Counsellors into schools to see bullied LGBT Children.
    (iii) Youths should be educated on Sexualities and to not discriminate against them.

    We agree that some points on this should be altered, but we still think that youths should be educated on sexuality.

    QUOTE

    Article III: Implementation

    Section I

    (i) All member nations of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in 6 months of time from its approval by the European Council.
    (ii) The passing of this Act will overwrite any existing legislation regarding rights for LGBT individuals.

    Section II

    (i)Violations of this act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.

    We agree with the modifications to this section.


  • Mass Effect RP

    If there is desire from councillors as to the retention of the clause regarding the education of youth, then I will defer to their judgement. But I still fail to see why it should be included in a piece of EU-wide legislation. Surely, it would be better for individual member states, who know much more about their school system and societal views on homosexuality than the Union does, to determine their own curriculum on this subject. If this element of the bill were to pass, it would certainly need more fleshing out as to what exactly is going to be taught. Only not to discriminate, or something closer to what many would call indoctrination? Perhaps if Councillor Smith could provide clarification?



  • QUOTE (Halsberg @ May 28th, 2014 - 22:38)

    If there is desire from councillors as to the retention of the clause regarding the education of youth, then I will defer to their judgement. But I still fail to see why it should be included in a piece of EU-wide legislation. Surely, it would be better for individual member states, who know much more about their school system and societal views on homosexuality than the Union does, to determine their own curriculum on this subject. If this element of the bill were to pass, it would certainly need more fleshing out as to what exactly is going to be taught. Only not to discriminate, or something closer to what many would call indoctrination? Perhaps if Councillor Smith could provide clarification?

    Councillor Smith:

    If you have an issue with it, I think we can get rid of it. Your claims that it could be indoctrination are very much valid. I feel we can let go of the Youth sections to give lever way for nations to decide their own Curriculum, as that's what we feel is best. I don't feel it is necessary to provide clarification at this point as we will not be continuing with the Youth section.



  • The Duxburian Union is strongly against any attempt to impose backward social systems upon us. That is to say, your distinctions between groups based on what they look like or what they like to do have never existed in my country. Duxburians have no concept of sexual orientation, because it's something you do, not something you are. Pushing people into these rigid groups then creates opportunities to discriminate against them by other groups with more power. We find this revolting in an egalitarian society and absolutely refuse to teach our children about such stratification of people. There is no translation for "gay" "straight" "lesbian" "homosexual" "heterosexual" etc in Kendrelaatzenian, so it's difficult to explain this bill to my constituents.

    Also, gender is not the same thing as sex. "Male" and "Female" are not genders, they are sexes. Genders are like "sissy men" "alpha males" "welfare queens" "trophy wives" etc. There are dozens of genders in the Duxburian Union, all subject to change as a person lives out their lives or as how they are perceived by their peers changes. The whole transexual protection thing is stupid, too - we don't care what sex you were born as or what sex you want to be. It is what you do with your life that determines how you will be judged, meritocracy.

    This bill would be a huge step backward for my people. Duxburian students are better off not having a clue that these artificial constructs exist. Duxburians may have different skin complexions, come from foreign lands, have strange tastes, but none of these things make them better or worse than the next guy. You want to overwrite two thousand years of de facto and de jure equality in favor of a system that tells us that we are not equal because of what we look like or what we like to do? That doesn't make a shred of sense and is outright uncivilized.

    • Acwellan Devoy

  • ECoJ

    "As said many times in this coucil, I am against any attempt to force same-sex marriage upon countries whose values and traditions do not coincide with this use. In Inimicus, law states that marriage is a "...union between persons of the opposite sexes...", and we do not wish it changed. I therefore oppose this bill.

    Ralph Jaevons


  • Mass Effect RP

    Voting on amendments is now open. The amendments we have to vote on are:

    1. My own regarding marriage equality.
    2. Councillor Smith's regarding sex changing drugs.*
    3. My own removing Article II, Section III.
    4. My own regarding Article III.

    *I retract my earlier amendment regarding this.

    Voting on amendments lasts until 21:04 GMT on 31/5/14

    I, John Walters, vote FOR all amendments.

    • Acting Speaker John Walters


  • I, Eloise Murray, vote FOR all amendments.

    • Councillor of Miraco Eloise Murray


  • ((OOC: Do I vote?))


  • Mass Effect RP

    ((OOC: Yes. Everyone in the council, including the author of the bill in question, can vote at every stage.))


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.