If it pleases the chamber, I'll continue.
Europolis likes to pretend it has democratic legitimacy. We force, now, our councillors to be directly elected, separate to the legitimate governments they used to represent. We create this never-ending list of laws that our governments, democratically elected for the most part, have to apply. But there's a democratic deficit at the heart of Europolis. The EU is not a nation and it never will be; and councillors do not represent equal numbers of constituents.
If we want Europe to survive, let alone Make Europe Great Again, we need Europolis to ease off with the directives to the member states, because soon enough, the member states will start ignoring us. They might even question our legitimacy.
This is not necessarily about the merits of so-called 'conversion therapy'. Some may argue that it is torture, some may disagree. Some may argue that it should be banned, some may argue that an adult should be free to try whatever form of quack 'treatment' he likes. The preamble of this Bill calls the validity of these practices 'often questionable', which is not the strongest language I've heard. This is about whether we believe Europolis is the best place to make the law on this, or whether it's our national legislatures. What are we electing our governments and legislators back home for, if we won't let them decide on anything?
But I'm not stupid, and I can count, so I may as well seek to amend the Bill. The first point I'll make is that this has huge scope as it stands to shut down any gender identity clinic that does not push patients towards a transgender identity. There is some evidence that many people, especially children, with gender dysphoria can and do reconcile their gender and their biological sex. Under this Bill as it stands, exploring this line of treatment would be impossible - either it would be classed as torture under the law, or, if not, activist groups would draw clinics and medical practitioners into lengthy and expensive legal disputes by alleging that's the case. And even before then, the fear of those scenarios would deter practitioners from doing their jobs to the best of their ability.
This is a complex issue, and it is, therefore, best decided by our own governments, our own legislatures, and our own peoples. Therefore, I'd like to propose the following amendment:
Definitions, remove after 'sexual orientation', and add 'used as a way to turn lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual people heterosexual'.
I'd also like to take issue with some aspects of Section III, including Cllr Evergreen's proposed amendment. I don't know what the legislative process is in Malborya or Inquista, but in Pravoslaviya we can't change our laws 'immediately'. Six months is a perfectly reasonable timeframe. As such I'd like to propose the following alternative:
Section III, Clause I, replace '48 hours' with 'six months'
Moreover, Clause III is superfluous, since failure to implement any Act of the European Council is a breach of the Constitution that can be prosecuted in the ECoJ. Which leads me to propose the following amendment:
Section III, Clause III, remove entire clause
While, for reasons stated earlier, I oppose this Bill, I believe these amendments would go some way to making it at least tolerable to most of the nations of the region.
The Kingdom of Spain
