viteu
Party Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by viteu on Jan 6, 2018 18:14:48 GMT -6
Rules for this thread: (1) Any and all party members may post a speech to this Convention with permission (see rule 3). Non-party members may address the convention in the Guest Speakers thread. (2) This thread is only for speeches. While it is generally encouraged that responses to speakers be made in the " any other business" thread, if a party member wishes to address points, either in agreement or disagreement, in their own speech, they are welcomed to do so. Debates or posts that are back and forth discussions will be summarily moved or deleted. (3) If you wish to post a speech, please contact me for permission and identify the subject-matter. Each grant of permission is equal to one speech (so if you feel so inclined to address the Convention again, you have to seek permission again). This rule is not to police subject-matter; and any denials will be sent to Miestrâ Schivâ for review. In the interest of fairness, if she reverses my determination, I will yield. I truly do not foresee there being any issues (I'm trying to ensure this thread remains only for party member speeches and does not descend into debates or discussions). (4) Any party member granted permission to give a speech will be listed below. The speeches should follow that order. I would encourage you to have your speech ready to go upon asking for permission, but if someone requests permission and you have not posted within a reasonable period of time, I'll jump their slot. With that said, let's begin! Speaker list: (1) Viteu Marcianüs
|
|
viteu
Party Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by viteu on Jan 6, 2018 18:16:27 GMT -6
My fellow Talossans, it is with great honor that I, once again, have the opportunity to address this Convention. Miestrâ Schivâ and I decided to share party leadership some time ago, but I must clear the record. Any success and credit on the part of the Free Democrats in the last election, in negotiating with our coalition partners, the MRPT, that must solely go to Miestrâ. She is, without a doubt, the heart of the FreeDems. And I would bring shame upon myself if I did not thank, before this Convention and before the entirety of Talossa, Munditenes Tresplet, who served as our party leader and successfully negotiated our first coalition at the conclusion of the election of the 50th Cosâ.
Now, just over two years ago, I returned to Talossa. My reasons for departure need not be rehashed, but I left a staunch monarchist and returned vowing to remove the stain of the monarchy. Naturally, former political opponents became new allies. I stand by my commitment; I think my actions post-return support that.
When I last addressed this great party, I imagine many had, understandably, reservations about me. My last speech focused primarily on the benevolent tyrant and the inability to reconcile a commitment to democracy with maintaining an unelected head of state who, although some would lie to you, still wields considerable power. I reiterate every word of that speech, and I think the arbitrary actions of John corroborate my point.
But I promised something – that for the first time, in dare I say over two decades, or perhaps the history of this country, that the citizens would be asked, not by force of secession or threats of civil unrest, or anything other than in the most civil terms, by the very regime that was established for no other purpose to serve them, whether they wanted to truly embrace democracy or continue to shackle themselves under the chains of the benevolent tyrant. And such a question was put to the people in the form of a non-binding referendum. Now, I must concede, my proposition was soundly defeated by the anti-democratic monarchist. And I do not chide or disparage those Talossans who voted in favor of the monarchy. That was their choice. But that is the real victory, is it not? Talossans had a choice. Something that, in the Cosâ, the RUMP voted uniformly to deny, that Brad Holms (RUMP), Cresti Siervicül (RUMP), Eovart Xhorxh (RUMP), and Ián da Bitoûr (RUMP), thought that Talossans were not competent enough to decide. Something that, in the Senate, Sen. Ma ups Patritz la Mha a/k/a Hooligan (Florencià) and former Sen. Éovart Grischun (Vuode) thought Talossans should not be asked. I mentioned these names for a reason. Because, other parties aside, the RUMP voted virtually in unison to deny the people of Talossa a say in their government. Now, some members of the coalition, as mentioned, voted against giving the people a say, but they made their position known, and they debated it, and they were honest about it, but the RUMP largely remained silent. Rather, they felt that serving their benevolent tyrant was more important than recognizing the competence of their fellow citizens. But while Talossans voted in favor of the monarchy, what they cannot deny, at least honestly, is that but for the FreeDems, their voice would remain unheard; their consent ungiven. The vote must be, nay, is respected by myself and by this Party. The competence of Talossans is respected by myself and this Party. And the fundamental right of choice is respect by myself and this Party. It saddens me that other parties, namely the RUMP, do not share that sentiment.
The predicate of my feelings concerning the monarchy was always and remains about choice. I believe that choice, in a true democracy, must extend to all aspects of governance, to suffer the punishment of the voters when their government officials act out of turn, or to be awarded by the voters when they serve this nation to better it. I believe that nobody is above the rule of law. Now, obviously, not everyone agrees with me. But at the end of the day, the victory remains with a simple, unequivocal fact – had the Free Democrats not believed in the competence of the Talossan people, had they followed the implied belief of the RUMP that Talossans should not decide who heads their State, Talossa would not be one step closer to democracy. I may not agree with the result, but I believe Talossans are competent to decide the issue; the Free Democrats believe in the competence of the Talossans to decide the issue. That is our victory; that is what we proved to this great country. And in so doing, we moved the needled one step closer to democracy doing nothing short of doing what government must do – seek the consent of the people. Anything short is tyranny. And anyone suggesting otherwise is a liar. So we do not despair in losing the argument, because we planted the seed, and we set a precedent, and we said to the benevolent tyrant and his RUMP cronies “You will be answerable to Talossa.” The benevolent tyrant may think he is above the rule of law, but good Talossans know he is not. Now, this does not mean we will propose referendums every year, but it does mean this question will be asked again from time to time, and the result will be accepted each time. Why? For one simple reason – democracy requires recourse, results, affirmation, and consent. The monarchy is not beyond the people seeking recourse for its arbitrary abuse of power; is not absolved of producing results that benefit this country; its existence must be affirmed; and the people must consent to its powers. Prior to making this speech, I seconded the proposal put forth by Miestrâ Schivâ – the full removal, with no amendments, of the agonistic clause. And I encourage everyone to vote for it, lest our party perpetuates its existentialist crisis. And do not misunderstand me, the Free Democrats must always keep a light on for our brethren who support the existence of the monarchy because we share much in common with them, because they keep us honest, because they strengthen our arguments, because their voice is just as valuable, and JUST AS COMPETENT as ours. We are not the RUMP. We are the Free Democrats.
With that said, I do not endeavor to devote the entirety of another speech to the monarchy. My position is known, and my advocacy prevails. Now, last time I addressed this convention, I had just returned to Talossa. And at the conclusion of the election of the 50th Cosâ, the Free Democrats offered me seats in the Cosâ. And the FreeDems entered a coalition with the MRPT in which I, much to my excitement and admitted surprise, was appointed Attorney General. I am committed to reforming, no, not reforming, FIXING the judiciary. Let us be honest – the judiciary is broken. We have sitting Justice of the Uppermost Cort abusing his powers issuing sua sponte orders that do not even pass constitutional muster in his home country, and who interjects himself in politics, and referring to the people he serves as idiots. On December 28, 2017, I submitted my report and recommendation to the Ziu, as part of a clearly announced investigation into the untoward conduct of Ben-Ard, an investigation initiated in November, with clear procedure outlined, and which afforded him a free and fair chance to be heard. But he ignored it. As Attorney General, I filed a suit against Ben-Ard to nullify his illegal and inorganic orders, and prevailed only by entry of default judgment, because such mundane issues are beyond Ben-Ard. He cannot be bothered with the laws, either statutory or organic, of Talossa. His only defense is to accuse me of “forum shopping.” It would be laughable if it did not indicate that he has no respect for Talossa, for its people, for its laws, or for its government. He bring shame on the judiciary of Talossa, and I dare say on the judiciary of his home country. Ben-Ard initiated this issue; he now attempts to play the victim. I beseech every Talossan, Free Democrat or not, to take a stand against this nonsense. I call upon the Ziu to adopt the recommendation of the report and remove him from office.
I’ve spoken continuously about the need to reform the bar. To that end, I introduced the Bar Reformation Act (50RZ6), which passed by overwhelming majorities but was vetoed by the benevolent tyrant. This will be reintroduced in the forthcoming clark. But, what I am particularly proud of, is 50RZ6, the Due Process Amendment, which passed overwhelmingly and was adopted by public referendum, with 78.6% of voters supporting it. We cleared up ambiguity in the Organic Law and strengthened the civil rights of every Talosssan. We should be proud.
Okay, this speech has gone on long enough. But I want to conclude with this – when we concluded our last convention, the Free Democrats set out with a number of goals. One was to finally give every single voter in Talossa a fair chance to speak about the monarchy – we did. Another was to reform the judiciary – but now we recognize the judiciary does not need reformation, but fixing; we’ve made steps in that direction and remain committed to remedying those who would seek to undermine the rule of law and who bring shame to the Uppermost Cort; we sought to identify areas of the Org Law or el Lexhatx that are ambiguous and needed fixing – we have a record of success and continue to build on that record as we identify more areas. All of this is something to be proud of. And now it’s time to add a new goal – adoption of a new Organic Law. Within a short time, I shall propose an amendment to the party constitution calling for a full replacement of the Organic Law.
With that said, I thank you all for your time, and yield the podium to the next speaker.
|
|