Shireroth

I originally posted a law revision request in Military Affairs because I was unsure at the time where was the appropriate place to post it. It was suggested that I post it here. So I am.


I was reading the Shireroth law and noticed that one of them is not gender equal. I have highlighted that part of the law. The ravishment of only women? I strongly request equal gender rights and have added that the men be ravished too!

Thank You.





Chapter V. The Kaiser.
[edit] A. Impersonating the Kaiser

1. It is against the law to impersonate the Kaiser.
2. Punishment will be upon capture, and may include but is not limited to any of the following:
a. Banning
b. Public ridicule.
c. Both of the above.
. Justice will be served.
4. It is still legal to impersonate the Kaiser or pretend to the throne of the Kaiser if the real Kaiser says you can. But when the real Kaiser returns pretty much anything can happen, up to and including Civil Rec-war, decapitation of yourself and your lieutenants, the ravishment of your women, the burnings of your dwellings and animals, and the merciless slaughter of your supporters.

Pandora,

I turned your problem into a Bill. View it's progress in the Landsraad here:

Lawbook Correction Bill Part II 3284

As you can see, it is going to fail.

Meh. I say it doesn't really matter that much.

It doesn't. As I pointed out in the original thread, one could argue that woman is non-genderspecific in the Lawbook.

Lawbook IA1a wrote:For the purpose of legal documents, titles which linguistically imply a single gender, shall interpreted to mean both genders.

^Is that the right way of referencing Lawbook quotes?

LawBook: I, A, 1, a. would be closer.
or. LB: I, A, 1, A. for the technical short form.
or Lawbook: Chapter I, Section A, Sub-Section 1, Clause a. for the long form.

There could be a law saying all laws are gender neutral.

Indirectly, that's what LB: I, A, 1, A (;)) says, if we take "woman" to be the 'title' given to a female human. It's a title which "linguistically implies a single gender" and so it is gender neutal.

Wonderful. Problem solved.

That's what I thought...

Gentlemen (and I use this specifically to refer to male humans):

While I appreciate your attempt to find a logical way out of the mess of trying to make "women" mean any human adult, I don't think this will be acceptable or accepted by the female citizens and tourists here in this otherwise wonderfully sensitifve country. I think you will need to put the change in, or you will likely have 6 or more female human adults angry and resentful at being lumped in with "generic adult humans."

Thank you for your understanding. Women, by the way, don't take too kindly to being "lumped in" anywhere. I imagine this would also be true for the men (though I have no personal experience in this).

I have just read the disappointing vote on this measure and, I must say, I am very disappointed in you gentlemen who voted it down. I had hoped for better from you.

I agree 100% with you Carol. I only provide that explanation as a way to ensure there is no discrimination until we actually sort out this properly. It is important that this issue is resolved.

hypatias mom wrote:Women, by the way, don't take too kindly to being "lumped in" anywhere. I imagine this would also be true for the men (though I have no personal experience in this).

Um...define "lumped in"...

>_>
<_<
>_>

I can find several ways were I would take kindly to it...

You really didn't have to tell us you enjoy being fisted old boy.


It's a perfectly legitimate erogenous zone to stimulate and everyone is quite openminded...

Problem not solved.

Benkern: I thank you for helping me as much as you have. *hands you a hot homemade mango pie*

In light of the desion, I shall interperet Women to mean Men also, when it suits my purpose.


Now I have a question, the men who voted no on the bill. Did they vote no because they plan to impersonate the Kiaser and didn't want to be ravished when they are caught? I smell conspirisy!

No, I think we've just ruined a quaint feudal custom by trying to be politically correct.

This is ridiculous. I'm about two steps away from leaving Shireroth. Did we actually just pass a bill which says that if someone impersonates the Kaiser, it is legal to rape "their women" as a punishment? And the thing that someone found distasteful was that it's not gender inclusive? Holy fuck.

I love how nobody in this thread except benkern is even keeping track of what's happening in the Landsraad

What do you mean? I've been following this bill for ages, I just didn't comment on it. It has essentially passed, the ayes out number the nays by a large margin.

Seriously though, someone looked at that law and said "Oh my god! This legal allowance of rape isn't gender inclusive!"

I can't fucking believe this.

That's what you get when you have no bill of rights and no criminal code. Rape isn't illegal, just as we have no human rights here. But I suppose that is what everyone want, with this being an "autocracy" and all.

Ow no, please not that crap of human rights! I'm sick to hear that, the only thing you hear in the Dutch sector is protecting the human rights and democracy.

I'm not talking about rape being illegal, I'm addressing the fact that everyone is more concerned about the gender tense of the law rather than the fact that it's a law that allows rape.

I'm not saying we should have human rights codes etc... None of that is applicable to micronations.

I consider some of them to be applicable. What's up with this indignation now? The law has been on the books for quite some time.

Again, you're missing my point. Why is it a travesty that the term of the law is not gender neutral, but no one gives a shit that it's a law allowing rape?

It's politically correct barbarism - I think that makes it a world first.

It's being completely out of touch with reality is what it is. I'm really glad I'm not Kaiser any more, I don't know what I would do.

All I can say is that I am so glad that the choice of which rebellious subject to violate by impalement on a barbed sybian is no longer restricted by gender.

Well priorities must be made.

I'm wondering whether I should introduce rape, pillage and murder quotas for MoMA so that we avoid creating a discriminatory gender imbalance. We must seek to more accurately reflect the society we are trying to exterminate.