Ammendment to UDoHR
-
"Inimicus has always argued against European dictation of what member states can and cannot legislate. States' rights is among the most central and key values of the Inimician government. However, there is one value His Imperial Majesty's government adheres to even more: laicity. The Empire was founded to prevent the involvement of religious institutions in the public sphere, and this is a principle we stick to like glue.
"However it is framed, therefore, the Empire will resolutely oppose this amendment."
Sir Augustus Barrington
Empire of Inimicus -
Councillors, I need to remember you about the habit of waiting until the Speaker opens the discussion to start debating on the matter. Even if it's not a written rule, we should stick to habits as much as possible. Thank you.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Thank you Mr Tusk but no reprimand is necessary, though I appreciate the gesture.
Debate will continue until 24 February 2021 at 12h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
Thank you Mr. Speaker for opening this debate and also, if someone understood my comment as a reprimend, I'm sorry, that wasn't the real purpose of it.
But apart from that, I am very worried about this amendment which just starts destroying the progress of the European Union. How can we be so blind to propose an amendment to this section of the United Declaration of Human Rights when we have a country, called Eretzora, which does exactly the opposite? I'm even surprised this is coming from my friend and an European Progressive Alliance colleague as Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, but you know how life is, and the turns it can offer you.
Spain is an aconfesional state despite its relationship with the Catholic church, which is peculiar. But that doesn't mean we should restrict where the LGTBIQ+ collective shall marry and where it shan't, same with where they should marry. As Councillor for Spain, I will be voting against this amendment.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I undesrstand concerns which is why I proposed a civil union in the ammendment with equal rights just not the name. My concern is that this is potentially pushing nations towards leaving or not joining at all due to their relgiious cultures. I respect LGBTQIA+ need rights but we must balance this against religious rights and rights of religious political parties. My belief is this is best handled at a national level like we handle adoption for lgbt and many other issues such as ivf.I understand how hard it can be indeed my wife and I had to marry abroad due to the laws in Eretzora and I would love to see it changed but to do so could actually break up states like Eretzora and Zion which means discrimination could expand in Zion free of all EU laws. This is a very real threat as it is strongly considered possible either Zion or Eretzora could leave the Hebronic Federation in the next 5 years and this would likely see Zion leavin. Do we really want to see this happen and rights regress overall fully due to the Haredi extremist cultists effectively having unfettered control outside of the EU. I certainly do not want to see that . It also leads to issues in the Duchies in the catholic north which had civil union but not marriage in the north but all one had to do was do their wedding in Supseaxe if they wanted to marry. I am concerned loss of religious rights as well immigration concerns are leading to an increase in fascism and far right politics in the Duchies.The reality is Eretzora and Zyon will never change that law in the near future primarily because it requires a 66% vote to remove the power from the rabbinate , not something likely to happen while Jerusalem and Zyon hold so much sway federally.
James -Mizrachi-Roscoe
Councillour for United Duchies -
The UDoHR grants them that right. Are we gonna put it out now? These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the UDoHR and our Constitution.
Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Either that be a men with another woman, or a men with another men and a woman with another woman. This proposal is a strip to the things we have fought for. I understand Councillor Mizrachi but this is a regression not a progress of the law.
I will be voting against this amendment.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
I would suggest nations here many of which talk about sovreignty are judging by their own standards and enforcing their own secularism on other nations. You may not like laicity but the fact is many nations are run with sort f laicity or many regions are , and isn't the EU meant to support all members unless the abuse is agregious.The bill would leave room for a civil union as an alternative thast must be provided if a state doesn't want to call a union of gays gay marriage. I ask how far we extend this anti-religious rights agenda doe we force gay adoptions, ivf for gays to be provided for example. Why have we set the arbitrary line at marriage,. I am a liberal but also a proud moderate, I may not personally like ore support gay marriage restrictions but nations should have the right to do so or states should , this bill fixes an overeach of sovreignty something many here are supposed to care about but somehow nations don't care because they oppose any religious influence on government. As long as lgbt relationships are legal there really needn't be any extra EU level of enforcement, After all their is nothing stopping lgbt marrying in another province, state duchy or country like I had to because ours was an interfaith marriage. I don't think these laws are good laws but nations should have the right to implement then,
James Mizrachi-Roscoe
Councillour for United Duchies -
Councillor Mizrachi, restricting civil marriage is an attempt against human rights. This is not a religious or anti-religious agenda is a human rights issue. We are not mandating churches, we are working with nations.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
As there are no proposed amendments, final voting on this begins NOW and ends on 27 February 2021 at 20h00 GMT.
I vote AGAINST this measure.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
For United Duchies I vote for this ammendement
James Mizrachi-Roscoe
Councillour for United Duchies -
The Empire of Inimicus resolutely votes AGAINST this amendment.
Cllr Sir Augustus Barrington
Empire of Inimicus -
On behalf of the Union of Syndicates, I vote AGAINST this amendment
Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates -
On behalf of the Realm of Great Ruthund, I vote AGAINST this Admendment.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
On behalf of the Kingdom of Montenbourg, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR this Amendment.
Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for Leagio -
Given the recent shenanigans, I've extended the voting period on Amendments to 5 March 2021 at 20h00 GMT.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
On behalf of the Alkharyan Republic, I vote AGAINST this amendment.
Metin Fazlı
European Councillor of the Alkharyan Republic -
Voting has now concluded. With 2 votes FOR and 7 votes AGAINST, this amendment has been REJECTED.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
