Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 00:34:10
Server time: 15:25:49, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (4): ADM Drax | Brazil25 | R Drax | Triguns7491 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Civil Liberties Act.

Details

Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: February 2083

Description[?]:

This Bill protects the rights of citizens from illegally obtained information divulged during criminal investigations. This bill preserves the right of the accused to gather information about the investigation and also preserves their right to silence during the investigation. This strengthens our current civil liberties laws. Exceptions to the new bill, include suspects in murder,and rape cases, acts involving the stated destruction of the government, and known terrorist acts.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date04:54:54, July 19, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageThis will help prevent abuses in the judicial system. Every citizen is entitled to a certain levels of privacy, the current law doesn't go far enough.

Date10:12:28, July 19, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageWe agree that every citizen is entitled to certain levels of privacy, however we feel the law as is is perfectly acceptable.
The justice may only force people to give information, on certain matters, if it is required as evidence in a court of law. This does not break any privacy rights as this information could very well prove the guilt or innocence of the individual.

Date11:00:54, July 19, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageThe only problem I have with this is what limits and what protocols are the authorities required to abide by. It will be very easy for the justice to abuse his power by false interregation for instance and the accused will have no legal recourse. He will say anything even if it's a false confession to stay out of jail. I believe this protects the innocent and presumed innocent, in such a way as they will know their rights and be able to gather information for themselves regarding their situation without fear of any repercussions by the justices. I hate to bring in real life examples in a friendly game such as this, but I had the US Patriot Act in mind when I proposed this. There have been gross violations of citizens rights even though there were technically safe guards against these very same abuses. So I believe there can never be such a thing as just adequate enough or just good enough civil liberties when it comes to the law.

Date11:49:32, July 19, 2005 CET
FromUnited Blobs
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageAt present I would side with the WSS and just add extra safeguards. The Hobrazian people also are not keen on the idea as this old poll shows (http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8085/particracy/main/viewnews.php?newsid=3060).

Date11:56:03, July 19, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageThanks for the heads up. I didn't realize the people prefer less civil liberties by a 7% margin. I'll hold off on this for now and see if things change within the next few day's before I scrap this bill.

Date14:27:17, July 19, 2005 CET
FromUnited Socialist Movement
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageL-PU: Please do not destroy what appears to be a sensible Bill which benefits the civil liberties of everyone! Although we have few seats and not as much influence as before, we will back you on this Bill.

Date15:17:37, July 19, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageI feel rather strong about this bill and I hope a 4 year old poll has changed over that time. So I am sending this to vote.

Date15:37:47, July 19, 2005 CET
FromUnited Socialist Movement
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageWell we're with you on this one.

Date18:10:28, July 19, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageAs stated previously, we support the theory this bill pertains to, however in practice this bill could well be problematic.
It also doesn't benefit the civil liberties of everyone. In a perfect world, this would be great, but since their is no such thing as a perfect world (sadly not even within this simulation) we have to think on what is best for the majority.
I'll paint a hypothetical picture, hopefully this will explain the problems I have with this bill:
Person A is under investigation, say for stealing a car. He has no evidence to prove his whereabouts proving he was not involved.
Person B has proof that Person A was not in a position to steal said car as Person B was with Person A at the time. Both the above persons are having an affair. Person B is married.
Under present law Person B would be required to show said evidence, and so acquit Person A of any wrong doing, however under the proposed changes Person B would not be forced to show said evidence. Person B doesn't want to allow person C to know they have had an affair, so withholds evidence, which they are perfectly entitled to do as those records are for themselves only. Person A is sent to gaol.
Anyone else have a problem with that arrangement?

Date18:49:42, July 19, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageI see your point but hopefully we have a competent police force, that will be able to figure it all out without locking them all up until one of them confesses under distress. I believe one innocent man going to prison isn't worth 10 guilty men..if the police do their job then there is no need for these current tactics where the suspects rights evaporate as soon as suspicion falls on him.. The police still have enough power to detain criminals ,they just need a reasonable cause.

Date19:31:02, July 19, 2005 CET
FromWe Say So! Party
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageI have every respect for our police force, and our judiciary, however there work is difficult enough as is. All this law does is make that job that much harder and could, potentially, cause innocent people being fined, incarcerated and given the stigma of a criminal record without having done anything because someone is withholding evidence as they feel it is their personnal information.
Sadly we have to balance civil liberties with what is required to operate a lawful society, and we feel that this bill will just make an already difficult job even harder with no improvement for the average law abiding citizen.

Date23:23:01, July 19, 2005 CET
From Liberal-Progressive Union
ToDebating the Civil Liberties Act.
MessageOh the SDLP let me down. I thought you would be in.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 178

no
    

Total Seats: 222

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity.

    Random quote: "The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now." - Louis Proyect

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 68