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: Prostitution Act 2389
Details
Submitted by[?]: Christian Democratic Alternative
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: March 2391
Description[?]:
| As trading sex for money degrades human dignity (and has nothing to do with freedom, with most people wanting to trade sex for love instead of money), prostitution should be forbidden. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right for a person to prostitute himself or herself.
Old value:: Prostitution is legal and a recognized profession.
Current: Prostitution is legal and a recognized profession.
Proposed: Prostitution is illegal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:56:12, April 16, 2007 CET | From |  "Le Chaim" - Aesthetic Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Act 2389 |
| Message | No support... |
| Date | 11:04:05, April 16, 2007 CET | From | Conservative Union Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Act 2389 |
| Message | Full support. We are in favour of stamping out all unmoral things. Anyone with sense would vote yes here. |
| Date | 11:30:47, April 16, 2007 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Prostitution Act 2389 |
| Message | What gives the government the right to decide what is immoral or not? The individual is quite capable of deciding their own morality. |
| Date | 14:19:53, April 16, 2007 CET | From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Prostitution Act 2389 |
| Message | No support. |
| Date | 05:19:54, April 17, 2007 CET | From | Socialist Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Prostitution Act 2389 |
| Message | We shall oppose this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 61 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 189 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "A democracy that does not allow limits is not a democracy. Just as a limitless freedom is not freedom, but prevarication. Indeed, any theory of freedom worthy of this name is first of all a limit theory. If we extend the unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not willing to defend a tolerant society against the attacks of the intolerants, then the tolerants will be destroyed and the tolerance with them! Because, I ask to myself and ask you, given a certain system that we call democratic, which is today the best possible system to allow everyone to live freely and to be able to express their own thoughts, how can the same system admit attacks against its integrity? How can a system refuse the principle of the self-preservation? For this reason, to suppress the apologetics of thalerrism, it's for this reason that the exaltation of exegetes, principles, facts or methods of Thallerism and its anti-democratic aims does not constitute a violation of the freedom of manifestation of thought, but, on the contrary, the celebration of that freedom. The protection of the first premise on which a modern democratic system is based. And this premise must be safeguarded also and above all against itself and its abuses." ~ Malik Astori, Leadership of Liberty and Progress (Istalia) |