B-019: Bathroom Safety Act, 1675

[Speaker Rejo]

THE BATHROOM SAFETY ACT, 1675

An Act to relating to regulations and policies for entering or using a bathroom or changing facility.

 
 BE IT ENACTED by the duly elected Parliament of the Republic of Alduria assembled, - 

Section I.Citation.

1. This Act shall be officially cited as the Bathroom Safety Act, 1675.
   
2. This Act shall apply to all of the Republic of Alduria.
   

Section II.Regulations relating to certain bathroom or changing facilities.

1. For the purposes of this section, "bathroom or changing facility" means a facility where a person may be in a state of undress, including a restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room.
   
2. For the purposes of this section, “political subdivision” shall refer to an Aldurian state, city, or municipal government.
   
3. A political subdivision may not adopt or enforce an order, ordinance, or other measure that relates to the designation or use of a private entity's bathroom or changing facility or that requires or prohibits the entity from adopting a policy on the designation or use of the entity's bathroom or changing facility.
   
4. In awarding a contract for the purchase of goods or services, a political subdivision may not consider whether a private entity competing for the contract has adopted a policy relating to the designation or use of the entity's bathroom or changing facility.
   
5. All public government institutions or buildings shall adopt a policy requiring each multiple-occupancy bathroom or changing facility accessible to the public that is located in a public or government facility to be designated for and used only by persons based on the person's biological sex.
   
6. Subsection 5 shall not apply in the following situations:
   
   1. for a custodial purpose;
      
   2. for a maintenance or inspection purpose;
      
   3. to render medical or other emergency assistance;
      
   4. to accompany a person needing assistance in using the facility, if the assisting person is an employee or authorized volunteer or the person’s parent, guardian, conservator, or authorized caregiver.
      

Section III.Commencement, Severability.

1. This act shall not become law until it has received proper constitutional approval.
   
2. The provisions of this act are severable. If any part of this act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, that declaration shall not affect the part that remains.
   

 

Parliament will now come to order to consider this bill offered by the National-Liberal alliance for Opposition Week.

The Chair recognizes a member of the National-Liberal Alliance to speak on the bill.

[Recks]

Madam Speaker,

It is my honor to present the case, on behalf of the National-Liberal Alliance and millions of Aldurians, in support of this opposition week bill. This bill is an important piece of legislation that will serve a fundamental governmental role: to protect the safety of our people and to promote the well-being of our country.

This bill truly is a commonsense proposal, and the fact that it must be brought forward for debate just highlights how inept and dangerous our libertine colleagues have made Alduria. After all, what is more logical than having men to use men's restrooms and women to use women's restrooms? Is this not the purpose of distinct bathroom facilities?

My opponents, those who stand against this bill, expose themselves for indecent individuals, legislators who would rather the prurient interest of the few triumph over the common good of the many. That, however, will not stop them from their pursuit of morally relativistic reasoning. They will continue to advance the cause of immorality in our society, just as they have made allowance for homosexual unions and promoted the legalization of marijuana.

But, Madam Speaker, I believe that my part in this Parliament is to speak to the seemingly forgotten Aldurian citizen, the one who still embraces traditional values and who understands the necessity of bills such as this one.

After all, I am not alone in arguing that parents have a right to know that their children will be safe when they send them to the restroom. Senior citizens have a right to know that their privacy is being upheld when going to the bathroom. To those who argue that this is a waste of Parliament's time, I respond by saying that the rights of our children and the rights of our parents is no small matter: anything that can be done to protect them is well worth Parliament's time.

Some on the amoral left have said this is an assault on so-called transgendered Aldurians. I do not intend to attack my fellow citizens, but we must call out deviance for what it is: a societal illness that plagues the cohesion of our mutli-ethnic culture. Like an illness, deviance needs addressed and treated. We have societal norms for a reason, and this bill will add basic protections to the norms which we hold dear. For me, it is a simple question: Do we get people the help they need or do we promote behaviors that break our customs?

Madam Speaker, I believe that this bill is an important one. It will protect the rights of Aldurians to feel safe in public spaces. It will promote social cohesion and unity. And it will ensure private entities have their rights protected as well. With that, I yield.

[Speaker Rejo]

The Chair now opens the floor for general debate. All members may offer debate or amendments at this time. Debate shall last for no less than 48 hours.

[Seydlitz]

Mr Speaker,

What is the penalty if this Act is violated?

I yield.

[Alfonso Velez]

Madam Speaker,

We really must keep our bathrooms safe--from the tyranny of the National-Liberal Alliance. This bill is an affront on countless levels and is fundamentally unconstitutional and would be stricken down by even the most conservative of courts in a heartbeat. 

Before I highlight the obvious Constitutional breach that this National-Liberal Alliance bill would introduce, let me first address the "merits" of the bill--and I use that term quite loosely. This bill is designed to discriminate against our transgendered and non-binary citizens to appease the hardcore social conservatives in the N-LA--of which the Honourable Member who introduced this bill so openly subscribes to. 

Let's take the argument for a moment about how we want people to feel "safe" and "comfortable" in bathrooms and treat it as the valid concern of this bill. Of course it isn't, but just for argument--let's take that as granted. How would the Honourable Gentleman feel if Lisa, the Chief Operating Officer of Velez Industries who is transgendered, appeared in his restroom? Would he feel unsafe? I doubt it. Would he feel uncomfortable given that Lisa has fully transitioned and is as feminine as you Madam Speaker? He might--but I can tell you what concerns me far more than the Honourable Gentleman's pearl-clutching social conservative sensibilities--she would feel uncomfortable forced to use the bathroom of a gender she is not.

This is the fundamental paradox to me of the social conservatives bathroom battles--they force people who aren't a gender and who often don't appear outwardly as the gender that they had at birth to use restrooms and, if adopted, would not just make the public they claim to protect feel awkward, but would profoundly discomfort our citizens in the transgender community. That is the point, one supposes, but it must be said for the more rational among us to recognize. 

Now let's turn to the most obvious reason that this bill must be voted down even if Honourable Members here aren't supportive of the rights of the transgender and non-binary community: it's blatantly unconstitutional. The National Liberal Alliance has proposed a bill that plainly violates Article 83 of the Constitution which states that:

Article 83. No person may be discriminated against or privileged on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, race, language, origin, parentage, creed, faith, or nobility. Measures for the advancement of persons are admissible to remedy past discrimination.

This bill inherently discriminates on the basis of sex/gender, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. Therefore, it violates Article 83 of the Constitution. Thank goodness, Madam Speaker, that this Parliament had the foresight at the beginning of this session to codify this Article into the Constitution. Because of this foresight, even if this Parliament were to adopt this bill, it would be stricken down by the Courts. Therefore, I encourage Parliament to do not just the right thing, but the Constitutional thing in opposing this terribly contemplated bill.

[Recks]

Madam Speaker,

I will begin by addressing the concerns raised by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, before moving on to broader discussion of our Constitution - a document which we all ought to cherish, but ought never to abuse or manipulate in legislative debate.

Madam Speaker, Section 2, subsections three and four of this bill would simply ensure that political subdivisions of Alduria may not abuse their status to enforce ideological social planning on a private firm. These should both be self-executing, as will be shown.

Subsection three, in particular, prohibits the enactment of an ordinance that restricts private companies from adopting their own policies. So, if the Prime Minister's firm wanted to allow "Lisa" to use whatever bathroom "Lisa" desired, no subdivision could interfere with the Prime Minister's decision to make that policy. Subsection four is likewise self-executing, and would prohibit discrimination by subnational entities in determining who to do business with solely on the basis of their bathroom use policies, protected in subsection three.

I think, Madam Speaker, that the Interior Secretary would also find subsection five to be requiring the adoption of a policy in public bathrooms. This policy can be enforced as desired by the relevant public building administrator, but I would advocate for the least intrusive method possible. I also believe that this bill will heighten awareness of the perils of mixed-gendered bathrooms, and will serve in its own way of reinforcing cultural norms and protocols that one would've thought commonsense -  and indeed were commonsense not too many years ago.

Turning now to the text of the Constitution that our Prime Minister has cited, I argue that he is drawing completely the wrong conclusions from Article 83. This bill does not enable discrimination of any shape or form - any more than bathrooms already discriminate in the sense of male versus female. If the Prime Minister wants to argue that we should move away from gendered bathrooms altogether, that we should all share and get along, then that is his prerogative. But it completely anathema to the wisdom of the ages, to our inherited customs.

Particularly, subsections three and four prohibit discriminatory practices by our nation's subdivisions. But even subsection five doesn't discriminate, it simply states that biological men should use men's rooms, and biological women should use women's rooms. Anything less than this is wrongheaded and prone to cause immense dangers to our nation - especially to our youth.

I yield.

[Alfonso Velez]

Madam Speaker,

Just because this bill refers to discrimination as a "policy" doesn't mean it magically stops being "discrimination". The fact that this bill would require the Government to adopt this discrimination in all of its buildings and institutions is, in fact, patently unconstitutional. The Honourable Gentleman can claim this terrible bill is Constitutional all he wishes. Were it to pass this Parliament, which I am quite thankful that it won't, the Courts would strike this bill down in a heartbeat.

[Seydlitz]

Madam Speaker,

Will my learned colleague educate this House on the "immense dangers to the nation, especially our youth," that are apparently clear and present?

I yield.

[Speaker Rejo]

All time for debate has now expired. The question is: Shall Parliament pass the pending bill? Voting shall last for no less than 48 hours

DIVISION: CLEAR THE LOBBIES!

[Alfonso Velez]

NAY 

Level 3 Whip L&D