Question about music-related law

[Sebastián Pratesi]

So, this week here in Argentina, the Senate gave green-light to a law project which would force festival organisers/producers to include at least 30% female artists. (In case of not complying, they'd be required to pay 6% of the total earnings to a local music organisation.) The project is called Ley Mercedes Sosa (after a '60s folk singer), and was proposed last October by a group of local feminist, female singers/musicians. If approved by the Deputy House, the project becomes a law.

Right after their approving the project, Senate made the announcement on their Twitter account: https://twitter.com/SenadoArgentina/status/1131269883143098368. I just checked, and this is by far their most retweeted, liked, and commented tweet - and it's only 2 days old. (Senate's Twitter account is 7 years old, and they've tweeted over 18k times.) Most comments on the tweet are negative, so I guess it shows how divisive this law project really is.

I have 2 questions:

• Do you know of other countries/cities where a similar law has been approved and is enforced? (If so, which? What's the law like?)
• What's your take on this law project? (As you can imagine, many are in favour and others have strong arguments against it.)

Below are a few related links (couldn't find anything in English, sorry):

• Post on IndieHoy blog from last October, when the project was publicly announced:
  https://indiehoy.com/noticias/presentan-proyecto-ley-cupo-femenino-festivales-argentina/
• Article on Perfil newspaper from Wednesday, right after Senate approved the project:
  https://www.perfil.com/noticias/sociedad/el-senado-aprobo-el-proyecto-de-ley-de-cupo-femenino-en-festivales-de-musica.phtml

[Cool Chris]

.... [it] was proposed....by a group of local feminist, female singers/musicians.

Least surprising thing in the post.

[Sebastián Pratesi]

.... [it] was proposed....by a group of local feminist, female singers/musicians.

Least surprising thing in the post.

Well, the project's proponents themselves identify as such, and it's always mentioned in every article/interview about the project. I wasn't trying to exaggerate or anything.

Last night, I wrote to my province's 5 represantatives in the Deputy House, with the hope of getting the chance to express arguments against this law project. (I felt encouraged after watching Jordan Peterson do a similar thing in Canada a couple years ago.) So, another question I'm asking you guys is:

What arguments would you use to convince legislators of voting against this law project? (The fact that the law would be anti-constitutional should be enough, right?)

[Anguyen92]

What arguments would you use to convince legislators of voting against this law project? (The fact that the law would be anti-constitutional should be enough, right?)

I think a perspective to make when it comes to this kind of question is would there be enough female bands/musicians that is interested in playing these festivals and can fill up 30% quota on a consistent basis that this group is pushing for.  What evidence or research does this group have that proves that this can happen?  Say, if a majority of the festivals cannot meet the 30% quota and have to donate 6% of their earnings to a local music organization.  Are these local music organizations credible enough to provide their actions necessary to get people into learning music and perhaps encourage more female bands/musicians reach out to consider playing festivals? 

Are there enough women in Argentina that wants to make a name for themselves playing music and get into festival slots, but can't because festival slots are always too full?  Those are the kinds of questions I'm curious to see how this group answers when trying to propose something that changes the way promoters have to book acts and still make the festival profitable to keep going for another year and make their fans and ticket buyers happy in the end with the line-up.

[Sebastián Pratesi]

I think a perspective to make when it comes to this kind of question is would there be enough female bands/musicians that is interested in playing these festivals and can fill up 30% quota on a consistent basis that this group is pushing for.  What evidence or research does this group have that proves that this can happen?  Say, if a majority of the festivals cannot meet the 30% quota and have to donate 6% of their earnings to a local music organization.  Are these local music organizations credible enough to provide their actions necessary to get people into learning music and perhaps encourage more female bands/musicians reach out to consider playing festivals? 

Are there enough women in Argentina that wants to make a name for themselves playing music and get into festival slots, but can't because festival slots are always too full?  Those are the kinds of questions I'm curious to see how this group answers when trying to propose something that changes the way promoters have to book acts and still make the festival profitable to keep going for another year and make their fans and ticket buyers happy in the end with the line-up.

Those are some interesting topics, thanks for engaging!

You know, the organization that would be in charge of collecting the 6% fine (should the project become a law) is called INAMU - short for 'Instituto Nacional de la Música' (Spanish for 'National Music Institute'). According to the INAMU itself and the project's proponents, only 20% of the people registered as musicians in the INAMU are women.

Furthermore, this new law would require festival organisers to select female artists/bands already registered in the INAMU.

So, the law would not only affect negatively non-INAMU female artists' possibility of playing festivals, but also makes you wonder about the 30% requirement; shouldn't it be 20%?

(Of course, I don't think there should be any requirement based on gender, and neither does my country's National Constitution.)

Is there a similar law where you live?

[Cool Chris]

Ah so it is actually a form of Union bullying?

[TAC]

In an unrelated story, James Labrie will finally be touring his solo band this summer as part of the Lilith Fair.

[Anguyen92]

Is there a similar law where you live?

I don't think so.  Then again, I can't speak for all kinds of laws from different states when it comes to regulations on who promoters can book.  It comes down to a multitude of factors aside from are they available.  There's aspects like work visas if bands from Europe or South America or Asia that wants to play shows in the states.  In terms of gender and ethnicity, I don't think there are any restrictions.  Promoters are mainly focused on the following: can they create a line-up that can attract their demographics and sell it out and can they make a profit.  If so, they just look for the best bands that is best tailored for the festival based on draw and availability.

I think I can safely say this.  There's no way that something like this law would pass in the States or in Europe.  Promoters like Live Nation would not like any restrictions by law placed on them when it comes to creating and drawing the best festivals and make the most amount of money (and money really talks when it comes to things like this) that they can.  Thankfully, I think those big promoters have a lot of pull anyway to ensure that ideas like this get squashed. 

I like the intent of wanting to bring more female bands/musicians getting booked on festivals, but it needs better execution and not have any restrictions placed on promoters that's trying to book the best show/festival that they can.

[Sebastián Pratesi]

Ah so it is actually a form of Union bullying?

Looks like it.

By the way, the law project was based on research carried out between 2016 and 2018 by a Chilean organization/blog called 'Somos Ruidosa' (Spanish for 'We are Noisy!', although here it's with the female version of the word - as in 'noisy women'). The staff there studied the presence of women and men in 66 festivals comprising Latin American artists.

Here's an article about it (in English) on the 'Somos Ruidosa' blog:
https://somosruidosa.com/lee/latin-american-music-festivals-gender-imbalance/

In an unrelated story, James Labrie will finally be touring his solo band this summer as part of the Lilith Fair.

Well, guess what: under the proposed law, if you are a male singer (promoted as a solo artist) and you wanted to play with four women on guitar, bass, drums and keys, your act wouldn't be considered 80% female - it would count as 100% male.

On the other hand, if you are a girl and your backing band consisted of four men, your act would count as 100% female - eventhough there would be four times the number of men on stage! (That's how stupid this project really is.)

Promoters are mainly focused on the following: can they create a line-up that can attract their demographics and sell it out and can they make a profit.  If so, they just look for the best bands that is best tailored for the festival based on draw and availability.

I think I can safely say this.  There's no way that something like this law would pass in the States or in Europe.  Promoters like Live Nation would not like any restrictions by law placed on them when it comes to creating and drawing the best festivals and make the most amount of money (and money really talks when it comes to things like this) that they can.  Thankfully, I think those big promoters have a lot of pull anyway to ensure that ideas like this get squashed. 

I like the intent of wanting to bring more female bands/musicians getting booked on festivals, but it needs better execution and not have any restrictions placed on promoters that's trying to book the best show/festival that they can.

Again, you bring up some interesting ideas! I highlighted the sentence that resonated with me the most.

And, the first and third paragraphs should be common sense to everyone. But, then again, I live in a place where this happened:
http://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/gender-parity-in-congress-becomes-law.phtml
http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/12/lawmakers-impose-gender-parity-argentinas-congress-surprise

[El Barto]

I don't much care for this in principle, but it's honestly not all that harsh. The penalty is rather modest. Book whoever you want, add 4pts to the ticket cost, and proudly claim that six dollars of every ticket goes to support the National Music Institute. And it probably won't be that hard to get female acts up there. Nobody says they have to headline. Put some local gals on side stages, book Nightwish, and call it a day. If anything I'd just look to change the standards for who applies. Robert Palmer's band should count as female.

[Lethean]

Yeah, I don't get why it's only based on the singer.  All of the musicians should be counted.  And what if it's an instrumental band with a mix of men and women?

[Sebastián Pratesi]

I don't much care for this in principle, but it's honestly not all that harsh. The penalty is rather modest. Book whoever you want, add 4pts to the ticket cost, and proudly claim that six dollars of every ticket goes to support the National Music Institute. And it probably won't be that hard to get female acts up there. Nobody says they have to headline. Put some local gals on side stages, book Nightwish, and call it a day. If anything I'd just look to change the standards for who applies. Robert Palmer's band should count as female.

RE: the Nightwish thing - One of the problems that this law project generates, is that the law would not apply just to big, crowded, already-established festivals, or popular international artists. According to the project, every event with live music and 3 or more artists would be covered. This means, for instance, that small, emerging labels and less-popular music genres with very few women in the country (such as math-rock) could find their chance of growing compromised.

As far as the Robert Palmer thing goes, you're right - it doesn't make much sense to ask for more women on-stage and not count backing bands. Another absurd example is this local, feminist female singer called Bárbara Recanati. For 10 years, she was the front-woman of a four-piece called Utopians; in 2017, she kicked out their guitarist (based on alleged misconduct with girls), she replaced him with his husband, and now she plays (and is promoted) as a solo artist. Because of this last fact, she and her backing-band would be elligible to fulfill the law requirement, eventhough there's only 25% female presence there.

Yeah, I don't get why it's only based on the singer.  All of the musicians should be counted.  And what if it's an instrumental band with a mix of men and women?

That's a very interesting question, and one which I think would be interesting to ask to the legislators in charge.

According to one of the projects (the one green-lighted by the Senate), a "female" band is a band with at least 30% of female presence - obviously, give and take. So, for instance, YON (a local math-rock trio whose guitarist is a girl called Anabel) counts as a "female" band.

According to the other law project (one which hasn't been voted but is available on the Congress website), a "female" band is:

• a band fronted by women, or
• a band with more than 50% female presence.

Obviously, YON has less than 50% female presence, so it all depends on whether Anabel is considered the band's front-woman. She occasionally whispers in some pieces, so you could consider her as having a more prominent role. But, then again, the band was co-founded 10 years ago by Anabel and the bass player, and the music is written collectively. So, I guess it all depends on what the band members say.

(Cool band, by the way. You can check them out here: https://yyoonn.bandcamp.com)

Oh, and - it's not about the singer, but the band's leader. This means, for example, that Nightwish wouldn't be considered a female band. It also begs the question of how you determine who gets to be considered a band's leader.

[pg1067]

I have 2 questions:

• Do you know of other countries/cities where a similar law has been approved and is enforced? (If so, which? What's the law like?)
• What's your take on this law project? (As you can imagine, many are in favour and others have strong arguments against it.)

I'll start by pointing out that (1) I'm a lawyer in the U.S., and (2) I have never attended and have no interest in attending a music festival.  Everything I've read/heard about them leads me to believe it would be about the worst things in the world (regardless of who's playing).  That said...

Any law of this sort in the U.S. would be unconstitutional and illegal under most states' anti-discrimination laws.  Also, I have to wonder how "female artist" is defined.  Would a band that has 2 of 5 female members be considered to be a "female artist" or does a band have to have 100% or majority female membership to be considered a "female artist"?  Or does each person count separately?  Was Dream Theater a "female artist" when it performed with a gospel choir that consisted of a majority of female members?

From a personal perspective, while there are a number of female artists I like, there are only a couple all-female bands I like, and most of the female singers I like don't fit with genre of music I like the most (i.e., I don't think Celine Dion is showing up on a festival bill with Maiden, Priest and DT any time soon).  I don't want bands I don't know or don't like shoved down my throat just because some quota needs to be met, and I'm sure promoters of festivals want to book the most potentially profitable bands without regard to gender.  What's next?  A requirement that 20% of the artists must be "black" and 15% must be east-Asian and 5% must be middle eastern?  While that sort of thing might not be as much of an issue in a country like Argentina, it sure would be in the U.S.

Bottom line:  this law is stupid.

[pg1067]

What arguments would you use to convince legislators of voting against this law project? (The fact that the law would be anti-constitutional should be enough, right?)

Constitutionality would/should be a good argument, but I don't know anything about the Argentine Constitution, so I can't really help you there.  Beyond that, I think the best argument against the law is that, regardless of the law's constitutionality (or lack thereof), it constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender that would not serve any useful purpose.  Sure, it might expose some "female artist" to a new audience, but should the government be in the business of promoting certain musical artists over others?  Rather than set a quota, why not make it illegal to book or not book artists solely on the basis of gender?  Also, as hinted at in my prior response, it would be very difficult to define "female artist" in a sensible way, and it's a slippery slope to other types of discrimination.

[cramx3]

It's of little interest to me here in the US, but I would say, what do the touring bands think of this and the festivals?  Does this law help or hurt them?  Part of me feels it's kind of negligent, but personally I am not a fan of the government enforcing rules on private music festivals.  Seems like an overstep. 

[Sebastián Pratesi]

Constitutionality would/should be a good argument, but I don't know anything about the Argentine Constitution, so I can't really help you there.

Below is Section 16 of "Declarations, rights and guarantees", Chapter 1 of the First Part of my country's National Constitution, as translated to English and available on the Congress' official website (https://www.congreso.gob.ar/constitucionParte1Cap1_ingles.php):

Section 16.- The Argentine Nation admits neither blood nor birth prerogatives: there are neither personal privileges nor titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal before the law, and admissible to employment without any other requirement than their ability. Equality is the basis of taxation and public burdens.

I would very thankful if you got to check it out in your free time, and if you could confirm whether the law in this thread would be unconstitutional. Many Argentinians like me claim that these laws shouldn't pass because they would violate Section 16 but, then again, similar laws have passed. (http://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/gender-parity-in-congress-becomes-law.phtml)

Any law of this sort in the U.S. would be unconstitutional and illegal under most states' anti-discrimination laws.  Also, I have to wonder how "female artist" is defined.  Would a band that has 2 of 5 female members be considered to be a "female artist" or does a band have to have 100% or majority female membership to be considered a "female artist"?  Or does each person count separately?  Was Dream Theater a "female artist" when it performed with a gospel choir that consisted of a majority of female members?

From a personal perspective, while there are a number of female artists I like, there are only a couple all-female bands I like, and most of the female singers I like don't fit with genre of music I like the most (i.e., I don't think Celine Dion is showing up on a festival bill with Maiden, Priest and DT any time soon).  I don't want bands I don't know or don't like shoved down my throat just because some quota needs to be met, and I'm sure promoters of festivals want to book the most potentially profitable bands without regard to gender.

RE: female acts
The Deputy House has actually two related and similar law projects for consideration. (That's something I learned after creating this thread.)

One of them, project 3484/18, is the one already approved by the Senate. According to it, a "female act" is either:

• a woman marketed as a solo act (regardless of her backing band's musicians and their gender), or
• a band with at least 30% female presence.

For instance, Celine Dion and Bent Knee (who consist of 2 women and 4 men) would be considered female acts, while The Pretenders (who consist of 1 woman and 5 men) would not.

(This project also requires the female acts to be registered in my country's National Music Institute, so I'm ignoring that part for the sake of simplicity in the examples.)

As for the other project (0379-D-2019), a female act is either:

• a woman marketed as a solo act (regardless of her backing band's musicians and their gender),
• a band with more than 50% female presence, or
• a band whose leader is a woman.

Of course, for this project, Celine Dion once again counts as a female act. And, now, The Pretenders are a female act. The topic gets a little blurry when it comes to Bent Knee. Obviously they don't fit the first and second criteria, so it all depends on whether you consider either Courtney or Jessica to be the band's front-woman.

Obviously, the band's singers are women but, then again, the project doesn't consider singers to be leaders. It seems to me that the band works in a pretty democratic way, and (according to their albums' credits) the songwriting is a collective process. I guess it would depend on the band's opinion.

This is another aspect of the projects that some of us Argentinians are criticising. They are not clear about certain concepts.

RE: "I'm sure promoters of festivals want to book the most potentially profitable bands without regard to gender."
That should be common sense, right? Yet, it doesn't seem this fact matters anymore. It's pretty sad. (Yesterday, I opened a thread similar to this one on Reddit, and many people have commented exactly the same as you have.)

[Sebastián Pratesi]

It's of little interest to me here in the US, but I would say, what do the touring bands think of this and the festivals?  Does this law help or hurt them?  Part of me feels it's kind of negligent, but personally I am not a fan of the government enforcing rules on private music festivals.  Seems like an overstep.

Well, some bands would obviously benefit if either of these two projects became law. Of course, many female acts (both solo artists and bands) would have higher chances of being included on festivals. Naturally, this would mean that other acts (male acts, and women not registered on the National Music Instute) would have their chances lowered. So, it depends on the artist.

In any event: from my perspective, the law project could also affect negatively young, emerging festivals/concerts organisers.

[Cool Chris]

Any law of this sort in the U.S. would be unconstitutional and illegal under most states' anti-discrimination laws. 

Unless they called it "Affirmative Action" then it's be ok.

[TheCountOfMinnesota]

"Si le das mas poder al poder, mas duro te van a venir a coger" -Molotov

This sounds like well-intentioned but misguided social engineering.  Well-intentioned in the sense that female artists have presumably been under-represented at these things historically, and the law attempts to address that problem.  Misguided in the sense that the approach is ham-fisted, and implies that promoters are the reason that women aren't getting opportunities.  In reality, I doubt that any promoters are choosing to pass over popular female artists due to misogyny.  Promoters are in the business of selling tickets for profit, after all. 

The more onerous aspect of this law is that artists would need to be registered with INAMU.  Sounds like a classic 'follow the money' case to me.

[pg1067]

Constitutionality would/should be a good argument, but I don't know anything about the Argentine Constitution, so I can't really help you there.

Below is Section 16 of "Declarations, rights and guarantees", Chapter 1 of the First Part of my country's National Constitution, as translated to English and available on the Congress' official website (https://www.congreso.gob.ar/constitucionParte1Cap1_ingles.php):

Section 16.- The Argentine Nation admits neither blood nor birth prerogatives: there are neither personal privileges nor titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal before the law, and admissible to employment without any other requirement than their ability. Equality is the basis of taxation and public burdens.

I would very thankful if you got to check it out in your free time, and if you could confirm whether the law in this thread would be unconstitutional. Many Argentinians like me claim that these laws shouldn't pass because they would violate Section 16 but, then again, similar laws have passed. (http://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/gender-parity-in-congress-becomes-law.phtml)

Unfortunately, it's not that simple -- at least not in the U.S.  In the U.S., laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender are rooted in section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution (most, if not all, state constitutions have similar or identical provisions, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll comment based only on the federal Constitution):  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I note that this is substantively similar to the Argentinian constitutional provision that you quoted.

The 14th Amendment was passed in the 1860s and wasn't initially given much thought.  It really only gained traction in the mid-20th Century as a result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.  The current interpretation is that laws that discriminate on the basis of gender get "intermediate scrutiny."  In a nutshell, a law challenged on the basis of gender discrimination must advance an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest in order to pass intermediate scrutiny.  As you probably can imagine, this means that some laws that discriminate on the basis of gender are constitutional, but it's a tough burden.  If the Argentinian law you mentioned were analyzed under the 14th Amendment, I think it would fail and be declared unconstitutional.  While the provision of the Argentine Constitution seems substantively similar to the 14th Amendment, I can't speak intelligently (or at all) about how that provision is applied by Argentinian courts.

As far as the definition of "female act," the more clear the law is, the easier it becomes to analyze, but the definition will impact the "substantially related" prong of intermediate scrutiny.

Needless to say, this is an area of law with massive amounts of jurisprudence, and I could write pages and pages and still only scratch the surface.

Any law of this sort in the U.S. would be unconstitutional and illegal under most states' anti-discrimination laws. 

Unless they called it "Affirmative Action" then it's be ok.

That's a touchy subject -- and I don't mean politically.  I haven't followed the last 15 years or so of constitutional jurisprudence very closely, but I believe we are very near a point where "affirmative action" (sometimes called "reverse discrimination") only flies with some (but not all) race-based discrimination.

[Sebastián Pratesi]

"Si le das mas poder al poder, mas duro te van a venir a coger" -Molotov

This sounds like well-intentioned but misguided social engineering.  Well-intentioned in the sense that female artists have presumably been under-represented at these things historically, and the law attempts to address that problem.  Misguided in the sense that the approach is ham-fisted, and implies that promoters are the reason that women aren't getting opportunities.  In reality, I doubt that any promoters are choosing to pass over popular female artists due to misogyny.  Promoters are in the business of selling tickets for profit, after all. 

The more onerous aspect of this law is that artists would need to be registered with INAMU.  Sounds like a classic 'follow the money' case to me.

You summed up the issue perfectly.

Plus, you quoted Molotov.

The 14th Amendment was passed in the 1860s and wasn't initially given much thought.  It really only gained traction in the mid-20th Century as a result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.  The current interpretation is that laws that discriminate on the basis of gender get "intermediate scrutiny."  In a nutshell, a law challenged on the basis of gender discrimination must advance an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest in order to pass intermediate scrutiny.  As you probably can imagine, this means that some laws that discriminate on the basis of gender are constitutional, but it's a tough burden.  If the Argentinian law you mentioned were analyzed under the 14th Amendment, I think it would fail and be declared unconstitutional.  While the provision of the Argentine Constitution seems substantively similar to the 14th Amendment, I can't speak intelligently (or at all) about how that provision is applied by Argentinian courts.

Thanks a lot, pg1067! That's an interesting/informative read.

Question about the bold sentence: which law would be an example?

[TheCountOfMinnesota]

Good 'ol Molotov… always a quotable band!

I had the pleasure of visiting your beautiful country a long time ago.  I spent a long weekend in Buenos Aires back in the summer of 2000.  One of the most magnificent cities I've ever seen, filled with great people.  Me encanta la gente de Argentina, y el barrio Recoleta.  Now that I'm married with kids, I hope to take them there someday.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't stress out about this particular law overly much.  You're fortunate to live in a wonderful place.  The law itself is truly misguided, but the intent is noble(ish) and I'm sure common sense will prevail in the end. 

[Sebastián Pratesi]

Good 'ol Molotov… always a quotable band!

I had the pleasure of visiting your beautiful country a long time ago.  I spent a long weekend in Buenos Aires back in the summer of 2000.  One of the most magnificent cities I've ever seen, filled with great people.  Me encanta la gente de Argentina, y el barrio Recoleta.  Now that I'm married with kids, I hope to take them there someday.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't stress out about this particular law overly much.  You're fortunate to live in a wonderful place.  The law itself is truly misguided, but the intent is noble(ish) and I'm sure common sense will prevail in the end.

I'm not sure the intent is noble or nobleish (again: this is to give benefits to a specific sub-set of female musicians - not even all female musicians), but let's hope so.

I'm glad you liked your visit. If you ever happen to make another one, I recommend going either a bit North (for instance, to Santa Fe), or South (to Patagonia; that is, if you are fond of nature).

[pg1067]

The 14th Amendment was passed in the 1860s and wasn't initially given much thought.  It really only gained traction in the mid-20th Century as a result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.  The current interpretation is that laws that discriminate on the basis of gender get "intermediate scrutiny."  In a nutshell, a law challenged on the basis of gender discrimination must advance an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest in order to pass intermediate scrutiny.  As you probably can imagine, this means that some laws that discriminate on the basis of gender are constitutional, but it's a tough burden.  If the Argentinian law you mentioned were analyzed under the 14th Amendment, I think it would fail and be declared unconstitutional.  While the provision of the Argentine Constitution seems substantively similar to the 14th Amendment, I can't speak intelligently (or at all) about how that provision is applied by Argentinian courts.

Thanks a lot, pg1067! That's an interesting/informative read.

Question about the bold sentence: which law would be an example?

I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but the example my Constitutional Law professor gave us was something along the lines of law enforcement or military intelligence infiltrating a group such as the National Organization of Women or an Islamic militant group.  In the former case, you'd likely want to exclude men and, in the latter case, you might want to give preference to men.

[El Barto]

The devil is always in the details. From what I gather your senate has a version of this and your "deputy house" has one. I have no idea who it works down there but up here a law has to be approved by the house, the senate, and the president. For that to happen there are usually a ton of compromises that have to take place, and the final law might not look a whole lot like it did when it was just one of the house's. Those details and compromises are probably where I'd be directing my fight. Rather than attacking the entire law I'd try to have it worked out in some way that's fair and doesn't ruin the game for everybody. Maybe increase the number of acts to 4 from 3. Make an equitable way of determining what a female act is. That sort of thing. That's an area where you could actually make some headway.

Regarding the constitutionality of it, the problem is that none of us actually understand what the constitution means anymore. Our constitution is 34 pages. It should be real simple. Yet every time there's a decision made by the courts it gets a little longer. "Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech" is about as simple as it gets. A child can understand it. Somewhere along the line a court determined that speech isn't just the spoken word. Speech is actually expression. Holding up a placard or wearing a t-shirt counts as speech. Burning a flag is a political statement, as is giving a cop the finger. On the flip side, convincing somebody to murder my wife or telling the principal that there's a bomb in a locker is definitely not protected. At this point those 10 words probably encompass 10 tomes of jurisprudence over 250 years. It's likely that your Section 16 works the same way. Argentina doesn't seem to permit women to have combat roles in the military, for example. (Which is also an example you asked PG1067 about earlier.) These are the sorts of things that, right now, hundreds of lawyers in your country are likely bickering over because even they don't know what is or is not constitutional.

Put another way:

Thou shalt not kill
(unless you have a pretty good reason)

[Sebastián Pratesi]

I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but the example my Constitutional Law professor gave us was something along the lines of law enforcement or military intelligence infiltrating a group such as the National Organization of Women or an Islamic militant group.  In the former case, you'd likely want to exclude men and, in the latter case, you might want to give preference to men.

Thanks! I see the point clearer now.

From what I gather your senate has a version of this and your "deputy house" has one. I have no idea who it works down there but up here a law has to be approved by the house, the senate, and the president. For that to happen there are usually a ton of compromises that have to take place, and the final law might not look a whole lot like it did when it was just one of the house's. Those details and compromises are probably where I'd be directing my fight. Rather than attacking the entire law I'd try to have it worked out in some way that's fair and doesn't ruin the game for everybody. Maybe increase the number of acts to 4 from 3. Make an equitable way of determining what a female act is. That sort of thing. That's an area where you could actually make some headway.

I wasn't very clear about the projects, sorry. (I'm learning stuff as I go.)

There are two projects: one comes from Senate, and one comes from the other House. They are different, but about the same topic (i.e., a requirement to include women in music events). Senate has already approved its own project, which is now in the hands of the other House. Meanwhile, this House has to decide what to do with both its own project and the one they received from Senate. If Deputies approve any of them, it becomes a Law, and off it goes to the President. (Of course, then the President has to do something with it as well, so it's just as you described.)

Naturally, you're right - some projects go through re-workings. However, the one approved by Senate has not received any re-working, so it includes the same ambiguities and inconsistencies as the original one. I get what you're saying, but this project is about forcing every music event (with three or more artists) to include a percentage of artists already registered in a specific institution. This project is not about women, as the project claims; it's about a certain subset of women, and it's basically the institution forcing itself on almost every music event (both the big annual festivals, and the small town gigs).

By the way: thanks for the extra example about combat roles!