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: The Riot Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Aldegar Freedom Party
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: May 2375
Description[?]:
| The True Conservative Party, in the interests of public safety and social order, would like to propose that a legislation be brought about that would allow police to disperse of any dangerous or riotous group of people, if the police feel that this group of people are . The TCP predicts that there might be a moderate opposition to this act, as it might appear to be an infringement of human rights to some parties in this nation, but the TCP would like to remind these said parties in advance that it is more of an infringement on human rights that innocent people's lives and safety be put at risk for no reason other than unnessicarily rowdy and riotous behaviour, than it is that the people behaving in a riotous manner be asked peacefully to depart from the area. The TCP proposes that, in accordance with tradition, at the time of the police dispersement of the riotous and dangerous groups, the 'Riot Act', a traditional act of the Parliament of Great Britain, originally set in place in 1714, be read out to the group as a declaration of official warning for all dangerous and riotous persons present. The Riot Act reads as follows: "Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King". Upon the reading of this act by a police spokesperson, the riotous peoples will have a designated amount of time to leave the area and stop behaving inappropriately, and after the duration of this designated amount of time has elapsed, the police may proceed to take any actions nessicary against offenders in order to surpress their behaviour. This traditional Riot Act has proven highly, highly efficient and effective for many nations in the British monarch ever since the ruling of King George, and therefore, the TCP sees that it would be very appropriate that Aldegar adopts this reading for a Riot Act of its own. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Current: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Proposed: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:23:41, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Communist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the The Riot Act |
| Message | Will it always be "public" safety? This is a power that could easily be abused. |
| Date | 14:23:58, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Greenpeace Party | To | Debating the The Riot Act |
| Message | Who dicede wich kind of gruop or assembly, to be a dangerous for the Republic? Absolutely not! |
| Date | 14:34:50, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the The Riot Act |
| Message | OOC: The rules of this game do not allow to refer to real-life countries or politics or anything similar! |
| Date | 14:37:15, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the The Riot Act |
| Message | We in the SD vehemently oppose this bill due to the danger of it being abused. The conduct of individuals is already regulated by the public order legislation, and the ability of dispersing any crowd is a totalitarian tool that we cannot allow in our country. There is no good argument against this direct attack towards public liberty. |
| Date | 15:33:19, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Riot Act |
| Message | There is a PERFECTLY good arguement for this so called 'attack towards public liberty'. The public liberty the SD speak of is being INFRINGED by groups of thoughtless, violent hoodlums who create an unsafe environment for the decent, innocent public. If the riotous crowd have the right to behave wildly and violently, SURELY the SD would agree that the rest of the public have the freedom and liberty to enjoy a safe environment without having to worry about being attacked by an unruly mob. This liberty is far, far more important than any 'liberty' the mob may have. To retreat and hide behind terms as broad and over-used as 'power', 'abused', and 'totalitarian' is a stereotypical response from parties such as the SD, the GP, and the MP. The SD is over-simplifying the issue - one could claim that virtually anything is an infringement of someone's liberty, in one way or another. What really matters more than anything else is that the decent people of the public enjoy a safe, ordered, structured society in which no violent thugs waving placards about war and capitalism. The TCP believes it is only fair that the safety of the decent people of this nation is infinitely held more important than the liberty of a bunch of green-haired, drum circle beatnic hippies to be able to run around the streets breaking windows and causing general ruckus. The TCP thinks that the nation's people, whom the TCP would like to remind the SD are, again, voting for the TCP's policies more than any other party in the nation, would tend to agree with the TCP on this policy. |
| Date | 17:38:17, March 13, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the The Riot Act |
| Message | We feel that we are as so many times before, not at the same side as the TCP. We clearly stated that the conduct of the people is adequately covered by the legislation of public law and order. Therefore the statements of TCP are absolutely false. We are sure that no party in their right mind will tolerate public violence. However we do agree that every group of individuals has their right to express their beliefs in a public way through protests. We feel that no government should be able to become both the judge and the police at the same time. The law is much too flexible for our liking in this matter. Perhaps in the future some party will start a dictatorship and any kind of protest will then be automatically dispersed, being it justified or not. That is the kind of liberty infringement we fight against. That is why we cannot support this. No bill can cover every possible circumstance, and we fear misuse. We congratulate the TCP on the big words of being the most voted for party, and we admit that they are the biggest opposition party, however that is not saying much because they are the only opposition party. We observe the tendencies of the electorate carefully and are proud to see that we have more than tripled our number of seats since the last election, while the TCP has been in decline for three mandates so far. The people have voted. |
| Date | 08:53:19, March 14, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the The Riot Act |
| Message | The TCP's seats have only declined in ONE mandate. In the most recent, the TCP gained 7 seats, to the already dominating party. The people have voted. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 276 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 294 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 80 |
| Random fact: Alduria, Rildanor and Lourenne all have Canrilaise (French) cultures. |
| Random quote: "Politics: a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce |