"O Ye That Love Mankind!" - FreeDem Convention Speech from V

Shortly after Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h has delivered his speech, the FreeDem Convention saw it's second orator, Viteu Marcianüs of ZRT (a republican fraction within FreeDem).

In his speech he criticized the very idea of preserving the monarchy just because it's "traditional" and proposed arguments as to why monarchy is a morally incorrect and flawed system:

My fellow Talossans, let me start by thanking the Free Democrats for granting me the privilege of addressing this Convention. Let me also take a moment to thank the Great Province of Fiova for hosting this convention. Today I speak to you all on behalf of the Zefençadéirs del Repúblicanismeu Talossán. And let me be clear, the Zefençadéirs del Repúblicanismeu Talossán is not only alive and thriving, but ready to fight hard for a simple truth – that all people are equal and that no individual is so important as to possess some divine right to consider themselves above all others, by right of birth or for any other reason that they may construct.

This is a simple concept and one that Talossa has ignored for far too long. It is one that is dismissed under the guise of “tradition.” It is a truth to which many pay lip service in one breath, but seek to obfuscate under the false premise of illusory representative democracy.

My fellow Talossans, I speak to you today with no personal animosity towards any particular individual in Talossa, but as a human who unequivocally believes in democracy, and who believes that institutions that inhibit a country’s democratic growth should be abolished in their entirety. I speak to you not as a subject of a kingdom, but as a citizen of a country – of Talossa.

But enough of this, let me get to the point. Many years ago I asked to join Talossa, and for nearly eight years, I was proud of Talossa and staunchly defended the monarchy. I did so because of tradition; I did so thinking that the institution was harmless and that Talossa existed as a true democracy. I did so because my I failed to consider that my privilege of living in an actual democracy with no monarchy allowed me to romanticize what it means to have unelected leaders. I dismissed the Republic of Talossa and our Republicans family who came back. I saw this as a sign of victory for the monarchy. But, as many of you know, I departed Talossa. And I departed it because of that animosity towards many Republicans. But I was wrong then. I realized after my departure that my anger was misplaced, and I acknowledged that some time after my departure. And to that, I apologize to the ZRT, to our Republican friends, and to the former Republic of Talossa itself. Nevertheless, earlier this year, when I sought to become a citizen once more, I vowed to myself to fight for a truth – that a monarchy is inherently inconsistent with democratic principles.

Now, no democracy is perfect. That much I concede because perfection is paradoxical; because perfection is a goal to work towards, never a state of being. My duty as a human is to fight for what I believe is perfection, to move us along the path of true justice and true democracy. That fight requires me to take a firm stance against those things that block our path to a more perfect democratic system. From time to time, we may be blinded to these blocks, or we may willingly stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don’t exist. But when the time comes that we do see them, that we must remove our head from the sand, when we are finally competent and mature enough to recognize them, we have an obligation to fight to remove them, to bring us closer to democracy. In Obergefell v, Hodges, Justice Kennedy spoke directly to the ever-changing nature of the guarantee of liberty promised to all Americans under the U.S. Constitution, and how that understanding of liberty changes as society matures. His words are not only enlightening but instructive to our current struggle: “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”

My fellow Talossans, we are currently faced with such a block that prevents us from continuing along our perpetual path towards democracy. And it is up to use to ensure that the nature of this injustice is addressed. With the monarchy as it exists today in Talossa, under no circumstance can Talossa call itself a democracy or a republic. For Talossa to call itself a representative democracy, or a constitutional republic, or to allude to anything of the sort by whatever innovative name these so-called monarchist may construct is to spit in the face of the spirit of democracy, of the noble idea that we, as the people, govern ourselves; that we, as the people, each have an individual right to participate in our government, and to work for, to fight for, to campaign for, a chance to occupy any position in that government. That every aspect of our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. But Talossa denies us this very right. Talossa says, “no, you are subjects to a king; you are inherently less than the king; only he is competent enough to hold the position of Head of State; only his heirs are worthy of occupying this position; you are not worthy and you will never be worthy.”

This is certainly the position of the so-called “king” himself. Cxhn. John Wooley believes that he is above the Organic Law. He refuses to recognize the independent authority of our judiciary. He actively refuses to recognize the Uppermost Cort’s recent holding In re Petition for Injunctive Relief re: OrgLaw amendment. He went so far as to recently instruct the Scribe of Abbaville to ignore the Cort and to reflect the Organic Law AS HE BELIEVES IT SHOULD BE REFLECTED, not based on the will of the people of Talossa, not based on the independent and Organic authority of our Judiciary to interpret the Organic Law, not based on any sense of democracy, but by virtue of the fact that he said so. He believes that his alleged “legal” interpretation alone should resolve questions of Organic interpretation. He sees himself as equivalent to the Ziu – as equivalent to the Cosa and the Senate. He ignores that the Ziu is made up of democratically elected representatives that are answerable to the citizens of Talossa. In a recent discussion I had with Cxhn John, when he attempted to argue that he can deny the will of the Ziu, and the will of the people, and block an amendment to the Organic law, I countered that this his position places him above the Organic Law, that he alone would then possess the absolute authority to decide if and when the Organic Law could be amended. He countered that my logic means that the respective houses of the Ziu were equally above the Organic Law as they, too, can decide when to block an amendment. But in his attempt to assert monarchal supremacy over the Organic Law, he ignored that the Ziu is made up of two democratically elected bodies that are answerable to the citizens of Talossa. He ignored that he is unelected; that he is not subject to recall; and that his argument deprives Talossans any form of recourse if he so chooses to hold the Organic Law hostage. He sought to equate an unelected position insulated from any form of democratic recourse with our duly elected legislature. Under his logic, if we sought to change the monarchy, he can say no. If we sought to revoke more powers, or to abolish it, he can say no. My fellow Talossans, what do you call an individual who places his position above the most important document of a State, its constitution, our Organic Law – the document from which all law derives, from which justice derive, from which our judiciary’s authority derives; and from which our legislature’s authority derives, irrespective of the will of the people; who thinks he alone possesses the final authority on how that document should be interpreted and who thinks he possesses the absolute authority on how it should be amended? What do you call a “head of state” who not only ignores the authority of an independent judiciary, but instructs other government officials to also ignore that authority, to ignore the law, to cast the Organic Law aside? I call them a tyrant.

My fellow Talossans. I stand before you a mere humble servant of democracy. I stand before you as someone who is no better, and no worse, than you. So now I make one plea to you. If you truly believe in democracy; if you truly believe in absolute equality before the law; if you believe our work towards implementing democratic principles never ends and must always seek progress; if you believe in justice; and if you believe in the right of the people to govern themselves in all respects, then I stand before you with one simple proposition – you must fight to abolish the monarchy. You must acknowledge that a monarchy in any inform is categorically anti-democratic. To do otherwise would be dishonest. To argue that we should keep the monarchy because of tradition is reprehensible. It spits in the face of every person who has ever fought for social justice. Slavery was tradition. Denying women the right to vote was tradition. Denying me, as a gay man, the right to marry my husband was a tradition (and still is in many part of the world). Apartheid was a tradition. Absolute monarchy and despotism were once traditions. Constitutional monarchy was once a tradition. Discrimination even in democratic systems were once traditions. But we have a moral obligation to identify those “traditions” and end them. Traditions that deny equality, that deny democracy, that deny justice cannot stand in the face of what is right, of what is moral, of what is justice. In the immortal words of Thomas Paine, “O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth.”

Now, I will end with this: I am not a naïve person. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” I understand that often the best change comes through incremental steps, but I also acknowledge that we are, from time to time, presented with opportunities to take a big leap forward. When those times arise, we have a moral obligation to take them. But this may not be the time. The ZRT stands committed and ready to work towards a new constitution. But we recognize that while we work towards, we can make other progress. What we do have, however, is a chance to put Talossa on the path it should be on. 48RZ14 was a step in the right direction, and now it’s time to ensure that we do not become complacent in one victory, but we fight even harder for the next.

The ZRT does not retreat in any fashion from its noble, logical, moral, and ethical goal of creating a republican government based entirely on a democratic foundation, but will take any steps necessary, even if incremental, to achieving that goal. Thus, I now proclaim before this Convention and without any hesitation that the ZRT will push for two referendums: first, a non-binding public referendum under Article XX of the Organic Law on whether the monarchy should be abolished, with a simple “yes” or “no” choice; second, an amendment to the Organic Law that requires a mandatory recall of the current monarch to occur once every five years, or every ten elections, whichever is sooner.

My fellow Talossans, thank you for your time. And thank you to Munditenens Tresplet for allowing the ZRT the chance to address this convention. Thank you to the ZRT Caucus for allowing me to speak on its behalf. And thank you to Talossa for listening, and considering, even for a moment, that the arc of the moral universe always bends towards justice, and that justice demands we make further progress in abolishing the institution of the monarchy. Thank you!  

In addition to the already registered orators, Ián Tamorán of Cézémbre expressed his wish to deliver his speech as well, not from any of his official positions, but as a citizen.

This is a Talossan version of the article translated by Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial.
 "Oho Voi Qi Ametz la Crastiun" - V sè Discuors per Congreßeu dels DemLiv

Enscurtz osprei qe Gödafrïeu Válcadác'h tent deliverat sieu discuors, el Congreßeu dels DemLiv videva ça secund orateir, Viteu Marcianüs dels ZRT (ünă fraziun da din els DemLiv).

In sieu discuors, o criticheva l’idéă steçéă da preservarh la monarc'hà solămint parç qe c’e "tradiziunal" es propoçeva dals raisnăs över perqet la monarc'hà c’e’n süstem moralmint necorrè es pien dels zesfauts:

"Vaes fuliensen Talossaes, laßetz-me schtartarh par ingraschelarh els Democrätsen Livereschti per me grantarh el privilexhù d’adreßarh acest Congreßeu. Ocsà, laßetz-me preindarh ün momaintsch à ingraschelarh la Grült Provinçù da Fiovă per þostarh acest congreßeu. Oxhi éu parléu à vhoi sür clam dels Zefençadéirs del Repúblicanismeu Talossán. Es laßetz-me estarh clar, els Zefençadéirs del Repúblicanismeu Talossán non solămint vivent es þrivent, mas prepareschti à combatarh hardì pr’iensă vrätsità simpil - qe toct i xhints sint equais es qe aucün individual isch sa impirtint come poßeçarh quálsevol drept drept divì per se considerarh come över toct d’alter, par el drept da nataschă eda cair ingen altră raziun qe si conducta fortaßis.

Acest c’e’n cunçeit simpil es l’iens qe Talossa tent ignhorat per luegnh tro lung. C’e l’iens qi c’e remandat sub el zesguçamaintsch dal "tradiziun". C’e’n vrätsità à qet muiteux paxhent dals zeclaraziuns vidăs, mas quairent àð afuscarh sub la forsendă fauçă da democraçù represantíu iglhuziunal.
Vaes fuliensen Talossaes, éu parléu à vhoi i ziuă cün aucün animösità perziunal värts ingen individual eineu in Talossa, mas com’iens þuman qi crea unequivocmint in democraçù es qi crea qe dals istituziuns qi inþivitent la grandeçă democrätic d’iens päts fostadrent estarh avoladăs complätsmint. Éu parléu à vhoi non com’iens enclin d’iens regipäts, mas com’iens citaxhién d’iens päts - da Talossa.

Mas c’e aßei d’acest, laßetz-me irh àl pointeu. Ja muiteux ars éu piedeveu àð entrarh Talossa, es per presca vuit ars, éu füt fiir da Talossa es zefençeveu imoblidier la monarc'hà. En façeveu à c'hauçă da tradiziun; en façeveu parç q’éu faileveu à considerarh qe va privilexhù da þavitarh ünă democraçù actual cün aucün monarc'hà me laßeva à romänticiçarh qet signhifica tirh dels duceux unelecteschti. Éu remandeveu la Republică Talossan es noastră famiglhă republican qi reveneva. Videveu acest com’iens schixhilet da victoriă per la monarc'hà. Mas, come belacops da vhoi en säpent, éu ceßeveu Talossa. Es à’cest, éu apoloxhéu àls ZRT, à noschtri amíci republicaes, es àl Republică Talossan vienstempmint steçéă. Nondamhíus, pü frü in acest ar, quand q’éu quaireveu àð estarh ün citaxhién da nhouă, éu nadoreveu à mhe steçéu à combatarh pr’iensă vrätsità - qe la monarc'hà c’e iherindămint ziscunvenént cün principais democrätici.
Nun, aucün democraçù c’e parfäts. Éu concedéu acest mült parç qe parfätsità isch inopinaval; parç qe parfätsità c’e’n goal värts qet si travala, nunca ün stateu d’estarh. Va deveir com’iens þuman isch combatarh per ça q’éu créu qe c’e parfätsità, movarh-noi lalunga del paþeu da xhusticiă vräts es democraçù vräts. 

Acest combat resquira q’éu fichéu contra acestilor cosăs-là qi restanchent noastra paþeu à’iens süstem democrätic pü parfäts. Da temp à temp, noi fortaßis sint orps à’cestilor blocads, eda noi fortaßis volent instertarh noschtri cäpsilor in la saulă es praintençarh qe ça non existent. Mas quand el temp cica qe noi en vident vrätsmint,qe noi fossent removarh noschtri cäpsilor dal saulă, quand noi sint finalmint aßei competints es matürs per reconéiçarh-en, noi tiennent ünă obrigaziun à combatarh à removarh-en, à apoartarh-noi pü próxim à democraçù. In Obergefell v. Hodges, Cadì Kennedy zireva direct àl natür imrè cambiind dal garantì da livertà qe isch promisadă à toct i Americaes sub la EVA sè Constituziun, es come această aprendençă da livertà cambia quand qe la società matüriça. Sieux mocts sint non solămint avintzinds mas instrucatíus à noastră luciă corent: "El natür dað inxhustiçíă isch qe noi fortaßis non povent vidarh-en in ár steçéux temps. Els xhenitours qi scrivevent es ratifichevent els Proxhets dels Drepts es el 14:t Amendamaintsch non presümevent à säparh l’alcançă da livertà in toct da ça’ns zimenziuns, es sa os acumandevent àls xhenitours del fütür ünă cartă qi prostexha el drept da toct i perziuns àð enxhoiarh la livertà quand qe noi aprendent ça sençù. Quand qe noveu intour revela zißonançăs teschent els proteziuns centrais dal Constituziun es ün restrinçamaintsch lexhital reçaifat, ün revindic da libertà fost estarh adreßescu."

Vaes fuliensen Talossaes, noi corentmint façent à tal blocad qi noi restanca da continuarh lalunga da noastra paþeu perpetul värts democraçù. C’e noastra deveir à sigürarh q’el natür d’această inxustiçíă isch adreßat. Cün la monarc'hà come ça exista oxhi in Talossa, Talossa put sub aucün circonstança se nominarh ünă democraçù eda republică. Talossa se nominind ünă democraçù represantíu, eda ünă republică constituziunal, eda alurarh àð ingenc'hosă d’această sortă cün qétsevol nómină novitanească qe acestilor monarc'histaes sa’peglhats sa’starh constructent, crac'ha in la façă del haì da democraçù, dal idéă noval qe noi, el pópul, se governent steçéux; qe noi, com’iens pópul, cadaschti tiennent ün drept individul à partiçiparh in ár governamaintsch, es à travalarh per, combatarh per, campagnharh pr’iensă escasençă àð ocuparh ingen posiziun in acest governamaintsch. Qe toct i äspectsilor da noastra governamaintsch isch del pópul, par el pópul, es per el pópul. Mas Talossa noi nega acest drept steçéu. Talossa zía, "non, voi estetz enclins à’iens regeu, voi estetz iherindămint míus q’el regeu; solămint o isch aßei competint à holdarh la posiziun da Cäps d’Estat; solămint sieux sovinds sint deneux dað ocuparh această posiziun; voi non estetz deneux es voi nunca seretz deneux."

Acest isch certanmint la posiziun del "regeu" sa’peglhat steçéu. Cxhn. Ian Lúpul créa q’o isch super el Legeu Orgänic. O refuça à reconéiçarh l’auþorità independent da noastră cadineríă. O refuça actíumint à reconéiçarh la zeciziun recent del Cort Pü Inalt in re Petiziun per Soli·ef Inxhunziunal re: Amendamaintsch àl LegOrg. O misma veneva txusca àð instrucatarh el Grefieir d’Abbavilla àð ignhorarh el Cort es cuschidrarh el Legeu Orgänic COME O CRÉA QE ÇA FOSTADRA CUSCHIDRAT, non basescu pa’l pedit del pópul da Talossa, non basescu pa l’auþorità independent es Orgänic da noastră cadineríă dað interpretarh el Legeu Orgänic, non basescu pa ingen sençù da democraçù, mas par el virtù del fäcts q’o zireva sa. O créa qe solămint sieu interpretaziun uschedadămint "lexhital" fostadra resolvarh dals fragăs d’interpretaziun Orgänic. O se vía come equival àl Ziu - come equival àl Cosă es Senäts. O ignhora q’el Ziu qomsista da representanteux democräticămint electeschti qi sint respunçivais àls citaxhiéns da Talossa. In ünă ziscußiun recent q’éu tignhoveu cün Cxhn. Ian, quand q’o atenteva à ráisnarh q’o put negarh el pedit del Ziu, es el pedit del pópul, es restancarh ün amendamainsch àl Legeu Orgänic, éu rebateveu qe sieu posiziun lo seta super el Legeu Orgänic, q’o soleu aglhorc poßeça l’auþorità ausolü à zecidarh schi es quand el Legeu povadra estarh amendat. O rebateva qe va loxhic volt zirarh qe las cámerăs apartins del Ziu estadran ocsà pariliteir super el Legeu Orgänic parç qe ça, ocsà, povent zecidarh quand restancarh ün amendamaintsch. Mas in sieu atentat àð aßirtarh el supremaçal dal monarc'hà över el Legeu Orgänic, o ignhora q’el Ziu qomsista da două vientratxăs democrätsmint electeschti qi sint respunçavais àls citaxhiéns da Talossa. O ignhora q’o isch unelectat; q’o non isch aricurdaval; es qe sieux raisnăs zespriva ingen formă da medelă àls Talossaes sch’o sa çoiça à tirh el Legeu Orgänic com’iens hostaxheu. O quaireva àð equalarh ünă posiziun unelectadă es insuladă dað ingen formă da medelă cün ár lexhislatíu dümint electat. Sub sieu loxhic, schi noi quairadrent à cambiarh la monarc'hà, o put zirarh qe non. Schi noi quairadrent à sararh dels pevarhen da phü, eda avolarh-ça, o put zirarh qe non. Vaes fuliensen Talossaes, ¿come nominetz-voi ün individual qi seta sieu posiziun super el documenteu el pü impirtint d’iens Estat, sieu constituziun, noastra Legeu Orgänic - el documenteu da qet toct i legeux derivent, da qet la xhusticiă deriva, da qet l’auþorità d’ár xhusticiă deriva; es de qet l’auþorità d’ár lexhislatíu deriva, sanc circümspicençă àl pedit del pópul; qi pensa q’o soleu poßeça l’auþorità final över come acest documenteu fostadra estarh interpretat es qi pensa q’o poßeça l’auþorità ausolü över come ça fostadra estarh amendat? ¿Come nominetz-voi ün "Cäps d’Estat" qi non solămint ignhora l’auþorità d’iensă cadineríă independent, mas instrucata altreux uficiais del governamaintsch q’os ocsà ignhorent această auþorità, ignhorent el legeu, descütent el Legeu Orgänic? Éu lo nominéu ün türont.

Vaes fuliensen Talossaes. Éu stéu avant voi emparet com’iens servesc minim dal democraçù. Éu stéu avant voi come quálseviens qi non isch miglhor, es non pior, qe voi. Sa nun éu façéu viensă pliadă à vhoi. Schi voi vrätsmint credent in la democraçù; schi voi vrätsmint credent in l’equalità ausolü avant el legeu, schi voi credent qe noastra traval värts el cumplarh dels principais democrätici nunca termina es toctziuă fost quairarh àl progreçéu; schi voi credent in la xhusticiă; es schi voi credent in el drept del pópul da se governarh in toct i respectuns, aglhorc éu stéu avant voi cün viens propoçat simpil - voi fossent combatarh àð avolarh la monarc'hà. Voi fossent repaxharh qe ünă monarc'hà in ingen formă isch cateorcmint antidemocrätic. Non façarh-en estadra unþonest. Ráisnarh qe noi fostadrent guardarh la monarc'hà à c'hauçă da tradiziun isch riprensaval. Ça cac'ha in la façă da cadascu perziun qi txamais tent combatat per la xhusticiă social. L’esclávatx estev’iensă tradiziun. Negarh àls frulor el drept da votarh estev’iensă tradiziun. Negarh à mhe, ün ciovec gay, el drept da mariarh v’espoçeu estev’iensă tradiziun (es resta estarh in muiteux pärtsilor del mundeu). La seperaziun estev’iens tradiziun. La monarc'hà ausolü es el türontismeu dret estevent dals tradiziuns. La monarc'hà constituziunal dret estev’iensă tradiziun. La decergnhadă misma in süstems democrätici dret estev’iensă tradiziun. Mas noi tiennent ünă obrigaziun moral dað intentificarh aceastăs "tradiziuns" es sterminarh-en. Las tradiziuns qi negent l’eqialità, qi negent la democraçù, qi negent la xhusticiă non povent starh in la vischtă da qet’st drept, da qet’st moral, da qet’st la xhusticiă. In els mocts unmortadeis da Thomas Paine, "¡Oho voi qi ament la crastiun! Voi qi desfisent àð opoçarh, non solămint la türonteríă, mas el türont, se presentetz."

Nun, éu sterminarhéu cün acest: éu non sint ünă perziun naívă. D:r Martin Luther King Xhugnhör zireva: "L’arc del ünivirs moral isch lung, mas ça tirna värts la xhusticiă." Éu cumprenchéu qe sovint el miglhor chinxh ariva in päçen incrementais, mas éu ocsà repaxhéu qe si, da temp à temp, presentent dals uportunitaes à preindarh ünă magnh impeita àl avant. Quand acestilor temps-là ariçent, noi tiennent l’obrigaziun moral da preindarh-en. Mas acest fortaßis non c’e el temp. Els ZRT stint obrigeschti es prepareschti à travalarh värts ünă nouă constituziun. Mas noi reconeiçent qe, quand qe noi travalent värts, noi povent façarh altreu progreçéu. Masmint, qet noi tiennent acertas isch ünă uportunità à setarh Talossa pa’l vej pa qet ça fostadra estarh. 48RZ14 estev’iens päç in la zireziun drept, es nun c’e el temp da sigürarh qe noi non zeviennent asequivais in ünă victoriă, mas noi combatent misma pü hardì per la próximă.

Els ZRT non restratent ingenvej da lor goal noval, loxhicala, moral, es eþical da creatarh ün governamaintsch republican basescu complätsmint sür un fundamaintsch democrätic, mas preindarhent ingen päçen neceßaes, misma schi incrementais, per acavarh acest goal. Com’acest, éu nun proclamarhéu avant acest Congreßeu es sanc ingen retractat q’els ZRT pußarhent per doua referendüms: pirmeis, ün referendüm püblíc es unvincülind sub l’Artical XX del Legeu Orgänic pa siat la monarc'hà fostadra estarh avoladă, cün ün çoiçéu simpil dað "üc" eda "non"; doualaiset, ün amandamaintsch àl Legeu Orgänic qi resquira ünă aricurdaziun perops del monarc'h corent à paßarh viens fäts in cadaschti simca ars, eda cadaschti bísquinc eleziuns, qétsevol c’e pü bentopt.

Vaes fuliensen Talossaes, graschciăs per voastra temp. Es graschciăs à Munditenens Tresplet per permitarh àls ZRT l’uportunità àð adreßarh acest congreßeu. Graschciăs àl sagrüt dels ZRT per me permitarh à parlarh sür clam da lhor. Es graschciăs à Talossa per üscüdarh, es considerarh, misma pr’iens momaintsch, qe l’arc del ünivirs moral imrè tirna värts la xhusticiă, es această xhusticiă demanda qe noi piusutra façent progreçéu da phü in avolarh l’istituziun dal monarc'hà. ¡Graschciăs!"

In adiziun àls orateirs detxa enrexhistreschti, Ián Tamorán da Cézembre exprimeva sieu pedit da ocsà deliverarh sieu discuors, non dað ingen da sieux posiziuns uficiais, mas com’iens citaxhién.