Hardly a person in power. Margrave of the capital. Not even duke, not even a council member. Has really no power except from kicking someone from his estate, should he chose to "punish" people not classing back. The inalienable rights say you have the right to choose your class. To me, this message, which was a simple letter - not a order or request - still allows people to remain priest. Just that they happen to need more nobles with a sword. Perhaps the character despises priests and favours warriors?
I understand that the argument is to stay as far away from the inalienable rights as you can, but it would be shortsighted to punish or be done with this sort of case as a clear violation. What would be a clear violation would be an order, or, if you want, check my family history. You can find it there twice.
Someone just has to point out to this player that priests have merit too. As long as he does not impose or threaten with punishment on priests refusing to become warrior he has not explicitly violated the inalienable rights. The "evidence" for this case is really weak, based on a one-sentence letter.
