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: P.D.L. 005/2374
Details
Submitted by[?]: S.C.A.F.R.
Status[?]: passed
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: January 2376
Description[?]:
| - |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on the separation of the police and the military.
Old value:: A civilian police force is in place and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Current: A civilian police force is in place and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Proposed: A civilian police force is in place and the military is not allowed to play any part in it.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:37:03, March 16, 2007 CET | From | S.C.A.F.R. | To | Debating the P.D.L. 005/2374 |
| Message | There isn't Pinochet... |
| Date | 17:18:33, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the P.D.L. 005/2374 |
| Message | No, but certainly there are times when the civilian police are not able properly protect the Aldegarian people. Serious natural disasters, for instance. |
| Date | 18:40:28, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the P.D.L. 005/2374 |
| Message | Serious emergencies must be defined before the military can have a say in the police. |
| Date | 05:01:10, March 17, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the P.D.L. 005/2374 |
| Message | The TCP believes that the military should be available to be called upon for serious emergencies, and can see no point in suggesting otherwise. |
| Date | 00:41:23, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the P.D.L. 005/2374 |
| Message | We will support but we appeal to the bill makers to clearly define the emergencies! |
| Date | 05:31:30, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the P.D.L. 005/2374 |
| Message | Excuse me, Social Democrats, what good is it to define emergencies after the bill is passed? Anyway, we are against this bill. While there obviously is a need for the separation of military and civilian police, for practical purposes, it is necesary for the allowance of the military to help out in cases of serious natural disasters and horrible riots bordering on rebellion. Do we really want our hands tied in those situations? If we pass this bill now, we shall regret it later. |
| Date | 19:44:29, March 18, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the P.D.L. 005/2374 |
| Message | We are always willing to accept ammendments. Our stance is that if a certain party in this nation gains absolute majority they can create a dictatorship. We prefere to have a very high quality legislation that will prevent this, and we hope that presence of many parties will prevent this from happening. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 346 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 7 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 297 |
| Random fact: Particracy is set in the fictional world of Terra, which mirrors the real world of today and yet is not quite like it. |
| Random quote: "Civil disobedience. . . is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem." - Howard Zinn |