NS Parliament Chamber [IC]

[Kowani]

Carl von Leslie interjects.

"Section 6 Subsections 2 and 3 essentially prohibit the government from maintaining an established church, even if freedom of worship is guaranteed. Saint Hilda has had a historically established church, the Church of Sweden. Most of our subjects are God-fearing Lutherans. Would these articles not prohibit the government from maintaining one of Saint Hilda's most sacred institutions?"

OoC: I do not know if a local church hierarchy within the Church of Sweden is established in Saint Hilda or if it has been disestablished. Take note that I did not say specifically that the Church of Sweden is still established or not, only that it has historically been established.

“We have better things to spend our money on then dividing the People. If your church is truly that of God, he will provide for it, and it will prosper. If not, then I suppose he does not care overmuch.”

[Agarntrop]

"Mr Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by Section 9 Subsection 2. A bill which can pass with a simple majority ought to be amended with a simple majority. It is simply unfair."

[East Meranopirus]

Roode Mann stands up.

"This bill is terrible and illegal because a sovereign legislature cannot bind itself. If Parliament can make a bill by simple majority, it must hold that Parliament can unmake the bill by a simple majority. It's a legal absurdity for Parliament to make a bill unrepealable."

“Even if we were to make the bill unrepealable, it stands to reason that we could just amend it later to allow ourselves to repeal it, or supersede it in later legislation. You’re completely right, it’s not just a legal absurdity, but an affront to common sense.”

“Now, to point out several loopholes that I believe to be of the utmost importance.
Section 6, Subsection 4 allows for harmful cultural traditions that are not inherently religious to be preserved, and we are forbidden from interfering.
Section 2, Subsection 3 as written prevents vaccination, as children are unlikely to want to get their shots, and since they do not immediately endanger others, we cannot utilize clause a to get around it.
Section 2, subsection 4 prevents a state doctor from amputating where it may be necessary.!
For that matter, section 2, subsection 2 prevents doctors from saving someone who was rendered unconscious from, say, a car accident.
Section 3 prevents us from criminalizing pedophilic relations, because to do so would be discrimination against pedophilic sexual orientation.
Section 4, subsection 1 allows 1 year olds to vote. I shall assume this was not intended.
A requested amendment to Section 4: The creation of a National Election Day, a National holiday, so as to allow as many citizens as possible to vote.
Section 7, subsection 1 would allow a state inclined to do so to intern prisoners for their entire lives, simply by declaring a state of emergency and allowing it to go on as long as desired.
Section 7, subsection 3-Is this a citizen’s jury, or a trial by judge?
Section 8, subsection 1 would allow wanted parties to legally hop a boat and leave.
Section 8, subsection 5 is patently ridiculous. If the King was to rape a 5 year old, as long as they remained within the island, they would be perfectly untouchable.
Section 8, subsection 6 should be amended to read “as long as they do so free from coercion.”
Section 8, subsection 7. I assume this is to mean that no laws shall apply retroactively. We do not have a time machine, and thus, cannot pass laws retroactively. Unless you were to have one, Madam, and are keeping it secret from the rest of us.
Section 9, subsection 2 should also allow for a public referendum option, with amendments passing by whatever majority the rest of this August body seems appropriate.

"The honourable member makes some very good points, however there are a few points I'd like to contest, or elaborate on.

"Firstly, the definition of one's 'integrity' is debatable here as the author has provided no definition. The honourable member's interpretation of Section 2, Subsections 2 and 3 seems to be based on a rather loose definition.

"In regards to Section 8, Subsection 5, I must inform the member that a head of state being immune from prosecution is in fact a common occurrence in almost every country in the world, whether or not that position is hereditary, as in a monarchy, or elected. The King of Sweden is immune from prosecution in his own country, as the President of the United States is in his own. However, that right should not be extended to the royal household. If the monarch does commit a crime, which is extremely unlikely, the reputation of the Crown would likely suffer greatly, to the point that the monarchy may be abolished. However, this is purely theoretical, and I digress.

"I would object to Section 8 Subsection 7 banning laws from being applied retroactively, as there are good reasons for such as law, for example, an amnesty law that acquits everyone who committed a crime that is now no longer a crime, or vice versa, allowing someone to be tried for a serious crime that was not a crime when it was committed due to a loophole or a similar circumstance."

[Merni]

"Madam Speaker, I believe that most of my many concerns regarding this bill have been already brought up by other honourable members. However, I believe that section 8, subsection 4 should be amended to read, "All minors below the age of majority shall be guaranteed a free and compulsory education until the age of majority.""

(OOC: also, @Agarntrop: the Speaker is female!)

[Martune]

"Orderr, Orderr. It's come to my attention that I must remind this chamber that all statements shall be made to the Madame Speaker. And that is Madame Speaker, not Mister. Members should also know that second person pronouns are not allowed in this chamber. Should this continue then I will have to name members. Proceed."

[Rebels and Saints]

Mister Speaker, Section 2, subsection 2c is horrifying. The right of the government to seize the property of unwilling citizens cannot be endorsed under any circumstances. Even if for the purpose of security, this gives the government far too much power."

[Martune]

Mister Speaker, Section 2, subsection 2c is horrifying. The right of the government to seize the property of unwilling citizens cannot be endorsed under any circumstances. Even if for the purpose of security, this gives the government far too much power."

"Order! How many times must the Honourable member be told. Madame, not Mister! It's a shame you couldn't tell the difference."

[Kowani]

“Even if we were to make the bill unrepealable, it stands to reason that we could just amend it later to allow ourselves to repeal it, or supersede it in later legislation. You’re completely right, it’s not just a legal absurdity, but an affront to common sense.”

“Now, to point out several loopholes that I believe to be of the utmost importance.
Section 6, Subsection 4 allows for harmful cultural traditions that are not inherently religious to be preserved, and we are forbidden from interfering.
Section 2, Subsection 3 as written prevents vaccination, as children are unlikely to want to get their shots, and since they do not immediately endanger others, we cannot utilize clause a to get around it.
Section 2, subsection 4 prevents a state doctor from amputating where it may be necessary.!
For that matter, section 2, subsection 2 prevents doctors from saving someone who was rendered unconscious from, say, a car accident.
Section 3 prevents us from criminalizing pedophilic relations, because to do so would be discrimination against pedophilic sexual orientation.
Section 4, subsection 1 allows 1 year olds to vote. I shall assume this was not intended.
A requested amendment to Section 4: The creation of a National Election Day, a National holiday, so as to allow as many citizens as possible to vote.
Section 7, subsection 1 would allow a state inclined to do so to intern prisoners for their entire lives, simply by declaring a state of emergency and allowing it to go on as long as desired.
Section 7, subsection 3-Is this a citizen’s jury, or a trial by judge?
Section 8, subsection 1 would allow wanted parties to legally hop a boat and leave.
Section 8, subsection 5 is patently ridiculous. If the King was to rape a 5 year old, as long as they remained within the island, they would be perfectly untouchable.
Section 8, subsection 6 should be amended to read “as long as they do so free from coercion.”
Section 8, subsection 7. I assume this is to mean that no laws shall apply retroactively. We do not have a time machine, and thus, cannot pass laws retroactively. Unless you were to have one, Madam, and are keeping it secret from the rest of us.
Section 9, subsection 2 should also allow for a public referendum option, with amendments passing by whatever majority the rest of this August body seems appropriate.

"The honourable member makes some very good points, however there are a few points I'd like to contest, or elaborate on.

"Firstly, the definition of one's 'integrity' is debatable here as the author has provided no definition. The honourable member's interpretation of Section 2, Subsections 2 and 3 seems to be based on a rather loose definition.

"In regards to Section 8, Subsection 5, I must inform the member that a head of state being immune from prosecution is in fact a common occurrence in almost every country in the world, whether or not that position is hereditary, as in a monarchy, or elected. The King of Sweden is immune from prosecution in his own country, as the President of the United States is in his own. However, that right should not be extended to the royal household. If the monarch does commit a crime, which is extremely unlikely, the reputation of the Crown would likely suffer greatly, to the point that the monarchy may be abolished. However, this is purely theoretical, and I digress.

"I would object to Section 8 Subsection 7 banning laws from being applied retroactively, as there are good reasons for such as law, for example, an amnesty law that acquits everyone who committed a crime that is now no longer a crime, or vice versa, allowing someone to be tried for a serious crime that was not a crime when it was committed due to a loophole or a similar circumstance."

The honorable member makes some good points, although I would dispute some of them. It is true that the author has provided no definition of integrity. However, we can safely assume that they referred to physical integrity, as to believe they meant moral integrity would be patently absurd. Under said interpretation, one would require the consent of every party involved before violating their physical integrity. And, as I hope the majority of this chamber knows, unconscious people cannot consent. “

“Now, it is true that most heads of state cannot be criminally tried. We shall ignore, for the purposes of such a constitution, the Third world, where the heads of state are either gods or useless, and focus on the developed world. And here, we see a method for removing the head of state. The President of the United States can be impeached, the Spanish Prime Minister ousted in a vote of no-confidence, etc. With a monarch, that is not possible. And, since the person in question is the Swedish Monarch, and not the St. Hildan monarch, due to the fact that no such person exists, we cannot even rein in their stipend.”

“A point: The Law as written, in section 8, subsection 7, says “no law shall be passed retroactively.” This is a grammatical atrocity, because what it means is that Parliament shall not pass laws in the past. I am assuming that it was not the author’s intention to outlaw legislative time-travel, and thus am left with only one option; That they meant for laws to not apply in the past.”

“Upon a rereading of the bill, I would like to withdraw my objection to Section 7, subsection 3.”

[Martune]

Still won't address the speaker

"Order. Once again we won't follow conventions set by the speaker. I've asked the house to address the speaker when making statements several times now. This is the last warning for the honorable member. I don't want to have to name the member now do I?"

[Inhorto]

OOC: I am sorry I do not have enough time to give detailed responses. I am on vacation now and was not excepting this bill to come up this quickly.

Eliasson rose,
"Madame Speaker, I understand the voiced concerns of my peers. I would like to propose the following amendment to this bill:

STRIKES Section 9, subsection 2

"Thank you for your time."

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, this bill incorrectly lists a “Saint Hildan Monarch” that does not exist. I stand in negation for that reason along with many others.”

[Inhorto]

“Madam Speaker, this bill incorrectly lists a “Saint Hildan Monarch” that does not exist. I stand in negation for that reason along with many others.”

Elisson grabs her copy of the bill and studies it intently. She then rises,

"Madam Speaker, I invite the Honourable Member to point me to the passage that refers to the King of Sweden or any princely entity as 'Saint Hildan Monarch.' Madam Speaker, if the Honourable Member is referring to the preamble, then I would assure him that the King of Sweden is indeed sovereign of Saint Hida."

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madman Speaker, I hereby retract my sponsorship of this amendment.”

[Martune]

“Madman Speaker, I hereby retract my sponsorship of this amendment.”

“While I appreciate the member’s participation and notice of their intentions, I must inform the member that this retraction is hollow to the reading of this bill. The bill was presented as is and will remain so. This does not stop the member from voting no, but I can’t have the clerks remove anything from the bill.”

[Inhorto]

"Madam Speaker, for the sake of time, I shall only be responding to a few of my Honorable Member's notes." (OOC: I don't have much time).

Section 2, Subsection 3 as written prevents vaccination, as children are unlikely to want to get their shots, and since they do not immediately endanger others, we cannot utilize clause a to get around it.

"Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member that a child who is not vaccinated would endanger others as phrased by this proposal, therefore the government could require parents to vaccinate children if it so chooses.

Section 2, subsection 4 prevents a state doctor from amputating where it may be necessary.!

"Madam Speaker, all of the matters listed in the section my colleague is mentioning relate to unwanted physical harm. I do not think amputation when necessarily is considered physical maiming, physiological abuse, or torture."

Section 3 prevents us from criminalizing pedophilic relations, because to do so would be discrimination against pedophilic sexual orientation.

"Madam Speaker, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a disease and a crime. It is quite frankly ridiculous that the Member could argue that it is an orientation."

Section 7, subsection 1 would allow a state inclined to do so to intern prisoners for their entire lives, simply by declaring a state of emergency and allowing it to go on as long as desired.

"Madame Speaker, this is untrue. States of emergency are declared in exceptional cases. That is the very definition of a state of emergency. The Government of Saint Hilda would not act in such a way that the Honorable Member is describing."

Section 7, subsection 3-Is this a citizen’s jury, or a trial by judge?

"Madam Speaker, the phrasing 'of their peers' clearly means by a jury of citizens."

Section 8, subsection 5 is patently ridiculous. If the King was to rape a 5 year old, as long as they remained within the island, they would be perfectly untouchable.

"Madam Speaker, the King of Sweden is our sovereign and a foreign monarch. He is therefore already protected against any prosecution within Saint Hilda, so I do not understand what the Member is getting at."

Section 8, subsection 7. I assume this is to mean that no laws shall apply retroactively. We do not have a time machine, and thus, cannot pass laws retroactively. Unless you were to have one, Madam, and are keeping it secret from the rest of us.

"Madam Speaker, I quote the definition of retroactive from Merriam Webster:

"extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past
especially : made effective as of a date prior to enactment, promulgation, or imposition."

"If a law is passed retroactively, that means it applies to such offenses committed in the past. Saying that a law cannot be passed retroactively does not mean that it is passed in the past. I yield my time."

EDIT: regarding the point on 9.2., an amendment has already been submitted.

[Kowani]

"Madam Speaker, for the sake of time, I shall only be responding to a few of my Honorable Member's notes." (OOC: I don't have much time).

Section 2, Subsection 3 as written prevents vaccination, as children are unlikely to want to get their shots, and since they do not immediately endanger others, we cannot utilize clause a to get around it.

"Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member that a child who is not vaccinated would endanger others as phrased by this proposal, therefore the government could require parents to vaccinate children if it so chooses.

Section 2, subsection 4 prevents a state doctor from amputating where it may be necessary.!

"Madam Speaker, all of the matters listed in the section my colleague is mentioning relate to unwanted physical harm. I do not think amputation when necessarily is considered physical maiming, physiological abuse, or torture."

Section 3 prevents us from criminalizing pedophilic relations, because to do so would be discrimination against pedophilic sexual orientation.

"Madam Speaker, pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a disease and a crime. It is quite frankly ridiculous that the Member could argue that it is an orientation."

Section 7, subsection 1 would allow a state inclined to do so to intern prisoners for their entire lives, simply by declaring a state of emergency and allowing it to go on as long as desired.

"Madame Speaker, this is untrue. States of emergency are declared in exceptional cases. That is the very definition of a state of emergency. The Government of Saint Hilda would not act in such a way that the Honorable Member is describing."

Section 7, subsection 3-Is this a citizen’s jury, or a trial by judge?

"Madam Speaker, the phrasing 'of their peers' clearly means by a jury of citizens."

Section 8, subsection 5 is patently ridiculous. If the King was to rape a 5 year old, as long as they remained within the island, they would be perfectly untouchable.

"Madam Speaker, the King of Sweden is our sovereign and a foreign monarch. He is therefore already protected against any prosecution within Saint Hilda, so I do not understand what the Member is getting at."

Section 8, subsection 7. I assume this is to mean that no laws shall apply retroactively. We do not have a time machine, and thus, cannot pass laws retroactively. Unless you were to have one, Madam, and are keeping it secret from the rest of us.

"Madam Speaker, I quote the definition of retroactive from Merriam Webster:

"extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past
especially : made effective as of a date prior to enactment, promulgation, or imposition."

"If a law is passed retroactively, that means it applies to such offenses committed in the past. Saying that a law cannot be passed retroactively does not mean that it is passed in the past. I yield my time."

EDIT: regarding the point on 9.2., an amendment has already been submitted.

“Madam Speaker, if I may respond to some of the comments made by the honorable member.

Firstly, on the vaccination point: The if one is to look at the relevant clauses, clause 2A says, and I quote, “The integrity of one’s body or possessions may be violated if the lives of others are immediately in jeopardy.” The key word here is immediately, as an unvaccinated child does not immediately endanger the lives of others, at least not until they become sick. Because subsection 2 says that violations of one’s personal integrity shall only be done for the purpose of gathering evidence for a court of law, there is no way to twist this statute into allowing vaccinations if the child doesn’t want one.”

“Oh? I turn to the University of Harvard, an esteemed American University, and, I assume that all shall agree to be a reliable, unbiased source.” He pulls out a piece of paper: “Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change.” “I would explain to the honorable member that although it is, in fact a mental disease, it is also a sexual orientation, and that the two are not mutually exclusive. That said, let us move on.”

“On the point of States of Emergency, the idea that the government would not extend it indefinitely is wishful fantasy. One could make that argument for any of the protections for individuals listed in this document, and so, one must wonder why it is being raised here. And, we need not speculate, as this has happened in reality, and is, in fact, still happening today in certain states.”
He sighs, somewhat annoyed now.
“Madam speaker, I would wish to remind the honorable member that I withdrew my objection to the trial by one’s peers upon having reread the document. But let’s us move on.”

“As to Section 8, I would ask the honorable member that if he is already protected from criminal proceedings in this nation, why on Earth are we repeating legislation? If he is not, I would ask why the monarch should be above the law, when this nation is ostensibly built upon the principle that all humans are equal in rights.” But perhaps today is not the day for republicanism.”

[Inhorto]

Eliasson took off her glasses and rubbed the bridge of her nose. Here we go.

Firstly, on the vaccination point: The if one is to look at the relevant clauses, clause 2A says, and I quote, “The integrity of one’s body or possessions may be violated if the lives of others are immediately in jeopardy.” The key word here is immediately, as an unvaccinated child does not immediately endanger the lives of others, at least not until they become sick. Because subsection 2 says that violations of one’s personal integrity shall only be done for the purpose of gathering evidence for a court of law, there is no way to twist this statute into allowing vaccinations if the child doesn’t want one.”

"Madam Speaker, I believe that the Honorable Member misunderstands the purpose of the clause at question. The purpose of the clause as read before this Chamber is to prevent anyone other than an officer of the law from compelling a physical person, and they can only do so in order to, for one, gather evidence on bases of probable clause, or, two, in order to force persons to comply with the law. If I might read the section in question oncemore:

The integrity of one’s physical person, as well as one’s property, possessions, and assets, shall not be violated except by officers of the law, and such violations shall only be done with the purpose of gathering evidence on the basis of probable cause or protecting others as directed and sanctioned by a court of law.

"Madam Speaker, allow me to entertain the Honorable Members line of thought. If a family, or say, a child, decides to not vaccinate, and the government has created a law requiring vaccinations, the doctors present would merely report the offense to the courts, who would then direct, as this bill delineates, the officers of the law to force vaccination upon the child. That's the end of it, Madam Speaker, and I reiterate, it is for the purpose of protecting others."

“Oh? I turn to the University of Harvard, an esteemed American University, and, I assume that all shall agree to be a reliable, unbiased source.” He pulls out a piece of paper: “Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change.” “I would explain to the honorable member that although it is, in fact a mental disease, it is also a sexual orientation, and that the two are not mutually exclusive. That said, let us move on.”

"Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but there is a clear and understood legal divide between someone who is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and someone who is a pedophile. This law is meant to protect the former. Pedophilia is not a certain preference, as homosexuality is the preference for members of the same sex or heterosexuality the preference for the opposing sex. Pedophiles can target both genders; it is not exclusive to a certain gender, that's why it is not an orientation. What it is, Madam Speaker, is child abuse of the highest degree. I am astonished that the Honorable Member can compare pedophilia with heterosexuality or homosexuality."

“Madam speaker, I would wish to remind the honorable member that I withdrew my objection to the trial by one’s peers upon having reread the document. But let’s us move on.”

(OOC: this is my fault; I have not had enough time until now to read into the details of your second post. Sorry).

“On the point of States of Emergency, the idea that the government would not extend it indefinitely is wishful fantasy. One could make that argument for any of the protections for individuals listed in this document, and so, one must wonder why it is being raised here. And, we need not speculate, as this has happened in reality, and is, in fact, still happening today in certain states.”

"Madam Speaker, What the Honorable Member says is true, but I have full confidence that the courts to know the difference between a true state of emergency and a farce to imprison the citizenry. To put it rather bluntly, it seems that the Honorable Member is trying to find loopholes where none exist. Madam Speaker, we are a developed country ruled by law and order. I highly doubt that any unlawful suspensions of habeas corpus will occur, and if they do, then the courts, as I said, will intervene."

“As to Section 8, I would ask the honorable member that if he is already protected from criminal proceedings in this nation, why on Earth are we repeating legislation? If he is not, I would ask why the monarch should be above the law, when this nation is ostensibly built upon the principle that all humans are equal in rights.” But perhaps today is not the day for republicanism.”

"Madam Speaker, I remind the Honorable Member that all leaders of state are allotted this protection as per international law. We cannot prosecute any Monarch, whether it be the King of Sweden or the King of Swaziland. Once again, Mister Speaker, this rule would be the same whether or not we were a republic."

[Lamaredia]

“As to Section 8, I would ask the honorable member that if he is already protected from criminal proceedings in this nation, why on Earth are we repeating legislation? If he is not, I would ask why the monarch should be above the law, when this nation is ostensibly built upon the principle that all humans are equal in rights.” But perhaps today is not the day for republicanism.”

"Madame Speaker, I would like to inform The Honourable Rep. that immunity from prosecution for heads of states is customary international law, and also applies here in Saint Hilda. The only exception is when international crimes committed by a head of state are so heinous that something must be done. This was seen in the case of Pinochet in the late 90's, where he was indicted by Spain and subsequently arrested in the UK, and deported to Spain."

[The Archipelago Territory]

“Madam Speaker, may I propose an amendment to strike All sections except section one and three?”

[Martune]

“Madam Speaker, may I propose an amendment to strike All sections except section one and three?”

“The honorable member should know that current convention dictates that amendment like this aren’t brought up during the reading. Though I will be more than happy to discuss alternatives with the chamber.”

[Martune]

“Order! Order! Voting will begin now and last for 24 hours. Lock the doors!”

Universal Rights Amendment
Author: Eloise Eliasson (NPP)
Sponsors: Karl Bergen (SDP), Austin Miller (SHAPC)

---

---

An amendment to the Constitution of Saint Hilda to give all persons within the territory of Saint Hilda rights and freedoms
BE IT ENACTED BY THE KING, sovereign of Saint Hilda, the Universal Rights Amendment to ensure common, universal rights to all citizens, permanent residents, foreigners, and those visiting for any period of time. To ensure all citizens the right to life, health, and opportunity. To guarantee all persons the right to speak freely, petition the government, and peacefully assemble to address grievances. To safeguard the freedom of worship and protect the sanctity of culture and tradition. To assure the equality of the sexes. To ensure the rights of all persons to a fair trial, and to protect them against abuse of power and government malpractice.

---

---

The Parliament of Saint Hilda shall introduce to the Constitution of Saint Hilda the following:

Section 1 - On the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other matters of International Human rights

The Government of Saint Hilda shall prescribe to the word and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and shall thoroughly observe all directives of the United Nations Human Rights Council, as well as any other United Nations ombudsman institution concerned with human rights.

Section 2 - Inviolable rights of life and the person

1. Human life is sacred above all else; all human life shall be protected by the state without exception. The Government of Saint Hilda shall not, for any purpose, impose the penalty of death.
   
   1. This clause shall not be interpreted to prohibit the killing of those who pose an immediate risk to the lives of others, or the killing in defense of one’s life or the lives of others, or killing of enemy combatants in wartime.
2. The integrity of one’s physical person, as well as one’s property, possessions, and assets, shall not be violated except by officers of the law, and such violations shall only be done with the purpose of gathering evidence on the basis of probable cause or protecting others as directed and sanctioned by a court of law.
   
   1. The integrity of one’s body or possessions may be violated if the lives of others are immediately in jeopardy, or if one is found committing a crime in flagrante delicto.
   2. No person shall be held against their volition, except for persons serving time in a penitentiary for committed or suspected crimes as determined by a court of law, or those found to be an immediate threat to others.
   3. Private property shall only be made public by eminent domain for the public good, safety, or security.
3. All persons are guaranteed the right to live in health, to have access to hospitals and care facilities, and to enjoy access to an acceptable standard of living.
4. All persons are protected without exception from physical maiming, physiological abuse, or torture.

Section 3 - Equality before the law

All persons, regardless of sex, religion, culture, socioeconomic status, orientation, or political identity are equal before the Government of Saint Hilda, and shall not be discriminated against on those accounts.

Section 4 - Right of suffrage

1. All citizens shall have the right to freely vote without burden or hindrance.
2. The Government of Saint Hilda shall respect the votes of its citizens, and shall in no way attempt to alter them.
3. The Government of Saint Hilda shall not institute a poll tax or attempt in any way to obstruct any citizen from voting.

Section 5 - Rights of free speech and similar protections

1. The Government of Saint Hilda shall not infringe upon the free expression of any kind—verbal, written, artistic, etc.—of its citizen
   
   1. Expression that clearly intends to incite violence or encourage illegal behavior is not protected by this clause.
   2. This shall not be construed to prohibit the Government from protecting intellectual property.
   3. The Government of Saint Hilda is empowered to protect its citizens and organizations from libel, slander, and defamation of character.
2. The Government of Saint Hilda shall protect the right of its citizens to petition to any authority, or to share their grievances without fear of reprisal.
3. The Government of Saint Hilda shall sanction peaceful assembly, so long as such assembly does not threaten the well-being of others.
4. The press shall enjoy special privilege within Saint Hilda; no press shall be searched, nor shall the press be forced to divulge information on its sources or operators, nor shall the Government of Saint Hilda interfere in any manner with the operations of the press.
   
   1. A press may be searched or commanded to reveal its sources if the lives of others are in jeopardy, as determined by a court of law.

Section 6 - Rights of religion and culture

1. All persons shall have the right to practice or to abstain from practicing any religion.
2. The Government of Saint Hilda shall not espouse, favor, or otherwise promote any religion or religious practice; it shall not comment or legislate on any non-violent religious practice.
3. The Government of Saint Hilda shall not give money or special favor to any religion or religious institution for any reason except for philanthropic, non-evangelizing missions.
4. Culture and cultural expression shall be protected; all cultures shall have the right to practice, maintain, and celebrate their traditions.
5. The Government of Saint Hilda shall not promote a culture or cultural practice above any other, nor shall it give authority to a single cultural group.

Section 7 - Rights relating to the judiciary and law

1. Upon arrest, all persons held for crimes yet unlitigated by a court of law shall have the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus to be seen by a court within forty-eight hours of their detainment.
   
   1. This right may be suspended in wartime or in a state of civil emergency
2. Criminal charges shall only be levied by a prosecutor under the direction of the state with the co-signature of the chief prosecutor responsible for the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed.
   
   1. In such cases where prosecution is brought by the chief prosecutor of a jurisdiction, the co-signature of the Attorney General shall be required. In such cases where the Attorney General brings forth prosecution, the co-signature of the Deputy Attorney General shall be required, or, if the aforementioned prosecution is of a crime occurring solely in one jurisdiction, the co-signature of the chief prosecutor of that jurisdiction shall be sufficient.
3. All persons have a right to a fair, unbiased, and expeditious trial in a court of law.
4. All persons charged with a felony or grievous criminal offense shall be tried before a jury of their peers to determine guilt.
5. All persons shall have unconstrained access to a trained barrister or barristers for their civil or criminal defense, and all communication between a person and their barrister shall be privileged beyond any subpoena. If a person cannot afford a private barrister, the state shall furnish one for them.
   
   1. The plaintiffs of civil cases are not required to be furnished a lawyer.
6. All persons shall have the right to access and examine any evidence or testimony against them, as well as the right to bring forth and compel any evidence or testimony in their defense. All evidence or testimony offered in support of the innocence of the defense must be considered, regardless of the nature of such evidence or testimony.
7. All persons shall be privileged against self-incrimination; the right to invoke this privilege shall not be held against the person who invokes it.
   
   1. A spouse shall be privileged against incriminating their spouse and a parent shall be privileged against incriminating their child.
8. All persons found culpable for a criminal or civil offense shall have the right to petition for a writ of certiorari before a higher court to appeal the sentence.
9. No person shall be tried for the same offense more than once.

Section 8 - Free movement, privileges of the Swedish Monarch, and other matters

1. All persons shall have the right to freely move through public places and purchase domicile in a place of theirchoosing, and shall have full right to leave Saint Hilda on their own volition.
2. All native or foreign vessels—on land, in air, or at sea—shall be permitted entrance into the territory of Saint Hilda if such vessels are in need of serious repair.
3. An exception is made for vessels of foreign armies, vessels transporting arms or armaments, or vessels commandeered by unlawful organizations or pirates.
4. All minors below the age of majority shall be guaranteed an education.
5. The Monarch of Sweden as well as all persons of their household are immune from criminal prosecution within the territory of Saint Hilda.
6. Any person may, for any purpose, wave their rights before a court of law.
7. No law shall be passed retroactively.

Section 9 - On application and amendments

1. The Universal Rights Amendment shall apply to the government of Saint Hilda and all constituent and local governing bodies therein, as well as within all chancelleries, consulates, and other extensions of the Government of Saint Hilda abroad, as well as on all vessels of land or sea, public or private, that fly the Saint Hilda flag.
2. An amendment of the Universal Rights Amendment may be adopted with the support of at least three-fourths of Parliament

Code: Select all

[color=#008000]Aye:[/color] [ ]
[color=#BF0000]Nay: [/color] [ ]
[color=grey]Abstain:[/color] [ ]

[New Lindale]

Aye: [ ]
Nay: [X]
Abstain: [ ]

[Kowani]

Aye: [ ]
Nay: [X]
Abstain: [ ]

[Agarntrop]

Aye: [ ]
Nay: [ ]
Abstain: [X]

[The Archipelago Territory]

Aye: [ ]
Nay: [ ]
Abstain: [X]