SO 2017-31 Heraldic Ensigns Act 2017

Heraldic Ensigns Act 2017

An Act to establish and regulate heraldic ensigns for public bodies.

WHEREAS Our Region does not bear or use any heraldic ensigns as of this present moment;

WHEREAS We desire that Our Region does bear and use heraldic ensigns from this present moment;

BE IT ENACTED by Us, with the advice and consent of Parliament, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Chapter I: General provisions
Article 1
The Parliamentary Union of Nations shall adopt heraldic ensigns.

Article 2
Under “heraldic ensigns” shall be read: seals, escutcheons, armorial bearings, heraldic badges, and other such similar heraldic devices.

Article 3
The King-of-Arms in Ordinary shall create and maintain a Roll of Arms, on which all public heraldic ensigns shall be listed.

Article 4
No-one shall be allowed to use any heraldic ensigns listed in the aforementioned Roll of Arms, unless he holds or possesses an office or a position, or when he exercises the duties, privileges, et cetera of such an office or a position, to which is assigned a heraldic ensign.

Chapter II: Greater heraldic ensigns for the Region
Article 5
The Parliamentary Union of Nations shall adopt heraldic ensigns for herself, consisting of at least an escutcheon and supporters, to be determined as set out by this Act of Parliament.

Article 6
From the day this Act of Parliament becomes Law, each Member of Our Region shall have the privilege to forward proposals for the heraldic ensigns as set out in Article 5 of this Act. Such proposals shall be forwarded to the King-of-Arms in Ordinary.

Article 7
After a period of three weeks, the term to send such proposals aforementioned shall be closed. The King-of-Arms in Ordinary shall list all proposals in one ballot and a vote will be taken.

Article 8
The proposal with the most votes shall be adopted, unless that proposal has received less than one in two votes casted. In such case the proposal(s) with the least vote(s) shall be excluded and another round of voting shall be held until one proposal has received the required minimum aforementioned.

Article 9
From the moment of its affirmation, the proposed heraldic ensign shall be adopted as the Greater Arms of Our Region. From that moment onwards, all Bills of Parliament, Amendments and Acts of Parliament, notifications in the International Gazette and other regional documents of Law shall carry, at the front, the Greater Arms of Our Region.

Chapter II: Lesser heraldic ensigns for the Region
Article 10
From the moment of its affirmation, the escutcheon of the proposed heraldic ensign shall be adopted as the Lesser Arms of Our Region. From that moment onwards, all Parliamentary Papers, not being set out in Article 9 of this Act, shall carry, at the front, the Lesser Arms of Our Region.

Chapter III: Display of the Region’s heraldic ensigns
Article 11
No Member of Our Region shall be permitted to display Our regional Arms, either the Greater or the Lesser variant, as his flag or avatar on NationStates.net or Our Forum.

Article 12
Violation of the rule as described in Article 11 of this Act shall be punishable as a misdemeanour.

Chapter IV: Special ensigns for offices and positions
Article 13
The King-of-Arms in Ordinary, or any of his Heralds, may assign especial heraldic ensigns to a particular office or position. These ensigns may not be exactly the same as those of Our Region.

Article 14
If an ensign, as specified in Article 13 of this Act, has been granted, the holder of that office or position shall bear and use it on all documents written in his capacity of the holder of that office or position.

Chapter V: Other provisions
Article 15
The King-of-Arms in Ordinary shall have the exclusive power and privilege to make especial regulations with regards to heraldic ensigns. Though, the King-of-Arms in Ordinary shall abide by the rules and regulations set by Parliament on such matters.

Article 16
This Act may be cited as “[The] Heraldic Ensigns Act 2017”.

Monday 1 May 2017
The Rt. Hon. Nassau-Windsor MP LSM
The Hon. Abdoa MP LSM GSM
The Rt. Hon. Libertarian Democracy MP LSM GSM

Debate will last until Thursday May 18, 2017.

I do hereby move the following Amendments:

Amendment I:
To strike "Bills of Parliament, Amendments and Acts of Parliament," and "and other regional documents of Law" from Article 9 of the bill.


Amendment II:
To strike "From that moment onwards, all Parliamentary Papers, not being set out in Article 9 of this Act, shall carry, at the front, the Lesser Arms of Our Region." from Article 10.


I invite my colleague Libertarian Democracy to propose his amendments.

Would my Hon. friend [Abdoa] be willing to change his amendments so that all externally issued official papers (such as the International Gazette, and perhaps, future treaties with other Regions) must contain the Arms?

Of course! Thanks for noting that!

I withdraw Amendment I, and move the following amendment:

Amendment III:
To amend Article 9 of the Act to read as follows: "From the moment of its affirmation, the proposed heraldic ensign shall be adopted as the Greater Arms of Our Region. From that moment onwards, all notifications in the International Gazette and all other official papers or documents issued outside the Union shall carry, at the front, the Greater Arms of Our Region."

I do request that the Right Honourable author of this proposal introduce amendments to address the concerns outlined in the below linked post.
https://parliamentaryunion.forumotion.org/t327-so-2017-31-heraldic-ensigns-act-2017#2472

Debate extended till Saturday May 20, 2017.

The debate is suspended for the duration of the parliamentary recess. When the parliament is reconvened, there shall be one extra day of debate, with no extensions possible.

I hope to receive permission from the Chair [Abdoa] to comment on the points made by my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy].

Point 1: Article 2: How about " 'heraldic ensigns' is defined as [...]"

I decided not to give a more specific definition of the term "heraldic ensigns" because it is of controversy in the area of Heraldry itself. Generally, an heraldic ensign applies to what is generally - and wrongly - called a "coat of arms", though there are questions as to whether the term only applies to the full ensign, or also to parts of it.

For example, when a heraldic ensign is composed of 1) an escutcheon (shield), and 2) supporters, does the term than also apply to just the escutcheon or only to the full arms. In order to prevent a struggle with this, I decided not to fill it in any further. (This discussion might become an issue when we have to decide which form we put on Treaties, etc.)

Point 2: Articles 6, 7, 13, and 15: "in Ordinary" needs to be defined.

This term applies to a King-of-Arms for that purpose appointed (under the Act so regulating it). When someone is appointed temporarily, or when the office is given into commission at any later time, in order to execute a specific partial duty rather than perform the full set of duties, the full style of the office would become "King-of-Arms in Extraordinary".

Point 3: Article 8: "has received less than one in two votes casted" is a tricky word choice. "has not received more than half of the votes cast" would be more appropriate. Also, the past tense form of "cast" is simply "cast".

As I look into it again, I cannot do otherwise than to agree with my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy].

Point 4: Article 10: Just to clarify, this is basically Article 9 but it applies retroactively to previous Parliamentary documents?

I am afraid my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy] is wrong on this point. First of all, Article 9 says that the Greater Arms must be displayed, while Article 10 says that the Lesser Arms must be displayed. Secondly, the types of documents are differing; only those not mentioned in Article 9 get the Lesser Arms if they apply to Article 10. Last but not least, this does not apply to any documents already passed/approved/accepted/et cetera, as both Article 9 and Article 10 encompass the words "From that moment onwards" referring to the moment the heraldic ensigns are adopted.

Point 5: Article 12: Follow this template to ensure the most specificity: " '[name of crime]', or [description of crime], is hereby defined as a Criminal Offense under SO#2017-14 ("On Judicial Rights and Procedures"), Article V, and is classified as a Misdemeanor." If you choose, you could add "and punishable by [...]".

On a technical legal note, I would think that the wordings chosen would suffice to get a member convicted. Though, also given the current stage at which this Bill is, I recommend that my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy] writes an amendment for this purpose. I am confident that the Chair will allow him such time as necessary.

Point 6: Article 13: I would suggest appending the following for clarity: "but may borrow elements from the existing heraldic ensigns of the Region"

In my opinion, this can also be understood from the current text. When the KoA assigns ensigns that are partially the same and partially not the same, the ensigns are no longer "exactly the same"; thus I think this change is unnecessary.

I will not censor the comments of the Rt. Hon. Nassau-Windsor, but as they were made out of session, they are not to be directly referred and dated to in official records - rather, for them to be citeable, they must be remade at reconvention. The Chair will volunteer to report them in that event.

As the Parliament has been recalled, the debate will end on Friday June 2, 2017.

The following remarks by the Rt. Hon. Nassau-Windsor are admitted to the record by the chair:

Point 1: Article 2: How about " 'heraldic ensigns' is defined as [...]"

I decided not to give a more specific definition of the term "heraldic ensigns" because it is of controversy in the area of Heraldry itself. Generally, an heraldic ensign applies to what is generally - and wrongly - called a "coat of arms", though there are questions as to whether the term only applies to the full ensign, or also to parts of it.

For example, when a heraldic ensign is composed of 1) an escutcheon (shield), and 2) supporters, does the term than also apply to just the escutcheon or only to the full arms. In order to prevent a struggle with this, I decided not to fill it in any further. (This discussion might become an issue when we have to decide which form we put on Treaties, etc.)

Point 2: Articles 6, 7, 13, and 15: "in Ordinary" needs to be defined.

This term applies to a King-of-Arms for that purpose appointed (under the Act so regulating it). When someone is appointed temporarily, or when the office is given into commission at any later time, in order to execute a specific partial duty rather than perform the full set of duties, the full style of the office would become "King-of-Arms in Extraordinary".

Point 3: Article 8: "has received less than one in two votes casted" is a tricky word choice. "has not received more than half of the votes cast" would be more appropriate. Also, the past tense form of "cast" is simply "cast".

As I look into it again, I cannot do otherwise than to agree with my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy].

Point 4: Article 10: Just to clarify, this is basically Article 9 but it applies retroactively to previous Parliamentary documents?

I am afraid my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy] is wrong on this point. First of all, Article 9 says that the Greater Arms must be displayed, while Article 10 says that the Lesser Arms must be displayed. Secondly, the types of documents are differing; only those not mentioned in Article 9 get the Lesser Arms if they apply to Article 10. Last but not least, this does not apply to any documents already passed/approved/accepted/et cetera, as both Article 9 and Article 10 encompass the words "From that moment onwards" referring to the moment the heraldic ensigns are adopted.

Point 5: Article 12: Follow this template to ensure the most specificity: " '[name of crime]', or [description of crime], is hereby defined as a Criminal Offense under SO#2017-14 ("On Judicial Rights and Procedures"), Article V, and is classified as a Misdemeanor." If you choose, you could add "and punishable by [...]".

On a technical legal note, I would think that the wordings chosen would suffice to get a member convicted. Though, also given the current stage at which this Bill is, I recommend that my Rt. Hon. friend [Libertarian Democracy] writes an amendment for this purpose. I am confident that the Chair will allow him such time as necessary.

Point 6: Article 13: I would suggest appending the following for clarity: "but may borrow elements from the existing heraldic ensigns of the Region"

In my opinion, this can also be understood from the current text. When the KoA assigns ensigns that are partially the same and partially not the same, the ensigns are no longer "exactly the same"; thus I think this change is unnecessary.

I do hereby table the following amendments:

1) Increment all numbering of Articles by 1.

2) Insert the following text as Article 1:
"For the purposes of this Act and all subsequent Acts, the term "in Ordinary" is defined as "appointed under normal circumstances or elected by general election", and the term "in Extraordinary" is defined as "appointed temporarily, afforded only a subset of the rights and duties of the respective office, or elected by special election".

3) In Article 8, replace "has received less than one in two votes casted" with "has not received more than half of the votes cast".

3) Append the following to Article 11: "without prior written, public, unrevoked permission from the King-of-Arms"

4) Amend Article 12 to read as follows: "'Illegal Display of Heraldic Ensigns', or violation of the rule set forth in Article 11 of this Document, is hereby defined as a Criminal Offense under SO#2017-14 ("On Judicial Rights and Procedures"), Article V, and is classified as a Misdemeanor."

In addition, I wish to convey to the Rt. Hon. author of this proposal that I do not think anyone in the region would object to defining "Heraldic Ensigns" as "any ornament or symbol, or the comprising parts thereof, established by the State College of Heraldry". I believe it would be beneficial to establish some kind of working definition, but I will leave it to the expert to propose an amendment imposing it.

I co-sponsor amendments I through IV tabled by my Rt. Hon. colleague Libertarian Democracy.

The debate is over; please go vote on the amendments in the Voting Chamber.