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: TEFNSC Withdrawal Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independent Right
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2377
Description[?]:
| The Treaty Ensuring The Free Speach of Nations and Citizens is another well meaning but overly restrictive treaty that needs to be done away with. Even disregarding our agreement or disagreement the treaty, Aldegar is the ONLY nation to have ratified this treaty, and as such it is completely irrelevant anyway. There's no reason to remain bound by an international treaty that ONLY we have agreed to abide by. |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the Treaty Ensuring The Free Speach of Nations and Citizens.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:59:43, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the TEFNSC Withdrawal Act |
| Message | We disagree. Although your party has a stronger argument with this than the Human Rights Declaration, we are still very much in support of this treaty, and we see it as a protection against dictatorship. As for your argument of Aldegar being the only nation in support of this treaty, then let us simply try to spread it to the international community. Anyway, you just shows that we love free speech more than other countries. |
| Date | 07:00:25, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the TEFNSC Withdrawal Act |
| Message | Was that last comment an accusation that we advocate radical positions? |
| Date | 09:11:53, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the TEFNSC Withdrawal Act |
| Message | In our opinion stating that we will step away from the free speech treaty is a position more radical than moderate. We object to this with roughly the same causes as for the human rights treaty. |
| Date | 16:15:48, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the TEFNSC Withdrawal Act |
| Message | Whilst the TCP does not believe someone should nessicarily be arrested for what they say, the party does believe firmly in things like anti-slander laws, all of which are unnacceptable by the standards of the free speech treaty. The TCP does not believe that there needs to be a formal law or treaty stating that any individual may say what he wants when he wants - this kind of freedom is implied by the constitution anyway. Once again, this treaty simply limits the scope of this nation's justice system. |
| Date | 22:04:22, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the TEFNSC Withdrawal Act |
| Message | No, we did not mean what the IR is suggesting. There was a bit of a typo there, anyway. The correct phrase should have been "Anyway, it just shows that we love free speech more than other countries." Does this get rid of any confusion? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 278 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 350 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: Particracy has 464 player slots. |
| Random quote: "With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day." - Martin Luther King Jr. |