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: Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill presents the formation of a cabinet. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. Traditionally, parties in the proposal vote yes, others (the opposition) vote no. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in and all parties in the proposal have voted yes, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2092
Description[?]:
| Green Advantage, after writing the "Chemical Weapons ban", now stands accused of openly violating the very law they authored. The bill's link follows, as well as the charges against Green Advantage and the evidence supporting the charges. http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=11605 The bills description reads: "Lodamun will not develop chemical weapons under any circumstances." While the bill's proposal states: "Proposed: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry." The bill, supported by parliament with a margin of 307 to 84, clearly prohibits all purchase and storage of "chemical weaponry". It is even more explicit in regard to the ""development" of chemical weapons." However, in spite of the fact that they authored this bill, the Green Advantage Party, through their party member, Silver Cameron(Lodamun's Minister of Science, Technology and Agriculture), has repeatedly condoned blatant violations of this law using his ministerial powers to enforce the laws of Lodamun. Statements they have made(by Green Advantage) confirming this: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=11653 [Begin: Primary Evidence, Green Advantage Statements] "the ban on chemical weapons does nothing to prevent research in any area." (In the same line, they contradict themselves directly by re-stating the current law--"It is quite clear: Lodamun will not develop chemical weapons.") "The meaning is extremely clear. As minister of science and bill drafter, I am interpreting the law to permit the use of water, pesticides (where permitted by law), research into protecting troops against chemical weapons attacks." (Water, pesticides, and many other chemicals possess a very real ability to be used as a weapon. And they are definitely chemicals.) "Chemical weapons" does not mean all weapons." (Certainly not, only those whose harm is primarily inflicted through the use of chemicals. Such as those chemicals found in poison ivy or snake venom.) "Our highest loyalty is no to any State, it is to Terra." (Ok, not really concerning chemical weapons-directly anyway. But to us, this represents a tendency for treason, even if the electorate is confident otherwise) "It is the job of the minister to apply the law." (Of course, however it is definitely not their job to reinterpret or rewrite the law as they see fit. Their job is to apply the laws exactly as they are passed by Parliament. To the letter.) "The law says nothing about banning research in chemistry" (In fact it does. At least the law approved by parliament, apparently not Mr. Cameron's personal version of the law. The law approved by over 2/3 of parliament clearly prohibits all development of chemicals with a significant potential to be applied as a weapon.) (from the same line as the last quote)"so the science ministry will not intervene in any way with this sort of scientific research." (It is the science minister's duty to intervene when inaction would opnly allow a party to break Lodamun law. To not intervene in selected cases like this, is a blatant example of corruption.) /[End Primary Evidence] Secondary Evidence(Submitted by Others in Other Bills): "The chemical weapons ban did nothing to allow certain chemicals being used in war. Right now, the military is barred from using any. Bug spray to the eyes can be considered a weapon, therefore it is banned. Water can be lethal, and it is certainly a chemical." --Tuesday Is Coming, (Debating the Foreign policy initiative for peace) "[Noun]A substance obtained by a chemical process or used for producing a chemical effect [Adjective(1)]Of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry [Adjective(2a)]Acting or operated or produced by chemicals [Adjective(2b)]Detectable by chemical means" --Webster's Dictionary, Definitions of the word "Chemical" "[Noun]Something used to injure, defeat, or destroy" --Webster's Dictionary, Definition of the word "Weapon" "Spraying agricultural pesticides, mosquito repellent, various non-lethal chemicals, tear gas, etc. on enemy troops would certaintly injure their vision and breathing." --Tuesday Is Coming(abridged without significant change), (Debating the Foreign policy initiative for peace) "The same applies to countries that attempt to formulate biological solutions to biological weapons. Biological weapons are composed of organisms, therefore other organisms can be created to prey upon and destroy(or else just render harmless) biological threats. However, we are currently banned from undertaking research into developing these creatures, as they would "harm, injure, defeat, and destroy" other organisms, specifically anthrax, plague, and other biological weapons." --Tuesday Is Coming, (Debating the Foreign policy initiative for peace) "GA: - "the ban on chemical weapons does nothing to prevent research in any area. It is quite clear: Lodamun will not develop chemical weapons." The Law: - "The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry. The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry." Now unless research and development are completely different things, which they patently are not, one of these two statements is wrong. We think that at the moment it is the claim by GA. " --The Adam Smith Party, (Debating the Foreign policy initiative for peace) "You do not have any business concerning yourselves with other countries, unless those countries pose a direct threat to this one. Lodamun should be your concern, you are elected to represent people of Lodamun. "Lodamun never gave itself any rights with regard to biological weapons, so this is irrelevant." No, but we did "reserve the right to develop" biological "weapons". "The bill description is: "Lodamun will not develop chemical weapons under any circumstances."" Therefore, Lodamun will not allow the development of any chemicals that can be readily used as weapons. "The meaning is extremely clear. As minister of science and bill drafter," The meaning is not "extremely clear". The next minister of science may have more respect for the letter of the law than you do. "I am interpreting the law to permit the use of water, pesticides (where permitted by law)," Hm, they arent permitted by law...But we have seen in the past that the Greens wish to ban all pesticides anyway... "research into protecting troops against chemical weapons attacks." Use chemicals for a military purpose?! Isnt that what you were trying to ban? "Chemical weapons" does not mean all weapons. No, it means all chemicals that have a significant potential to injure, defeat, or destroy something. "so we did not provide a definition in the bill." A rather significant omission, dont you think?" --Tuesday Is Coming(abridged without significant change), (Debating the Foreign policy initiative for peace) "It is not the job of the minister to interpret the law. That job lies with the judiciary. It is the job of the minister to try to make the law as clear as possible an expression of their intent." --The Adam Smith Party, (Debating the Foreign policy initiative for peace) ""It is the job of the minister to apply the law. The law says nothing about banning research in chemistry, so the science ministry will not intervene in any way with this sort of scientific research." Of course we should have known that Green Advantage would use their cabinet position to corrupt and redefine the law as they see fit. We apologize for hoping that this was not the case. As it is, the law states: "Lodamun will not develop chemical weapons under any circumstances."--Bill Description "Proposed: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry."--Proposal value Both claim to prohibit private or public entities of Lodamun from "developing" chemical weaponry. "Researching weapons with a significant potential to be used as a weapon", for all logical and legal purposes, is exactly the same as "developing chemical weapons". As Green Advantage has supported a ban on the development of chemical weapons, they now violate a Lodamun law they authored when they claim to apply this law in a way that does not ban any form of "research in chemistry". They cannot, as the minister of science and technology, allow unrestricted "research in chemistry" (as they now claim to do), without perverting the very law that they caused this nation to pass. We now open an official review of Green Advantage's actions as Minister of Science." --Tuesday Is Coming, final post to "Debating the Foreign policy initiative for peace" before opening this review. /[End Secondary Evidence] This cabinet proposal would replace Green Advantage's Science seat with an MLP Foreign Ministry seat. |
Proposals
Article 1
As per the Constitution, the President of the Commonwealth chairs the cabinet.
Article 2
The responsibilites of Science and Technology will be conducted by the CNT/AFL
Article 3
The responsibilites of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition
Article 4
The responsibilites of Internal Affairs will be conducted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Article 5
The responsibilites of Finance will be conducted by the 
National People's Gang
Article 6
The responsibilites of Defence will be conducted by the CNT/AFL
Article 7
The responsibilites of Justice will be conducted by the Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun
Article 8
The responsibilites of Infrastructure and Transport will be conducted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Article 9
The responsibilites of Health and Social Services will be conducted by the CNT/AFL
Article 10
The responsibilites of Education and Culture will be conducted by the National People's Gang
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:36:31, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | [start debate] |
| Date | 06:16:55, August 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Slander, and a poor attempt at it. |
| Date | 06:28:28, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Slander is spoken. I believe you refer to libel, which is written. Neither is the case here, as only false statements can be libel or slandere. What I am doing here is opening a review, and presenting certain relevant facts as evidence. Neither of these can be considered to be a false statement, as I document every statement made above and link back to the original sources. (Definitions from webster's) Slander: 1: The utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation 2: A false and defamatory oral statement about a person Libel(n): a: A written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b: a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt Every definition of these two terms includes qualifiers requiring the statements to be "false", "misrepresentations", "unjust", or "without just cause". It is my contention, supported by the above evidence, that no part of this bill is false or unjust in any way. It is our intent, that justice be served by this review. |
| Date | 17:22:50, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | an entirely predicatable if laughable attempt at revenge, which Mr. Cameron will not dignify with a response. |
| Date | 18:24:36, August 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | You have misrepresented the facts to suit your arguments. Under no circumstances would bug spray be considered a chemical weapon, for starters. |
| Date | 18:57:43, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | "You have misrepresented the facts to suit your arguments. Under no circumstances would bug spray be considered a chemical weapon, for starters." Bug sprays are, with out a doubt, chemical in nature. They have the potential to be used as a weapon against humans, and are designed for use as a weapon against insects. "an entirely predicatable if laughable attempt at revenge, which Mr. Cameron will not dignify with a response." Revenge is no part of this review. We are using an accepted parliamentary practice. We have presented the facts against you, whether you choose to defend yourself, or admit that no such defense is possible, is now up to you. |
| Date | 21:26:08, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | present a case that is stronger than "ice cream is a chemical weapon" and we will defend ourselves. Since the only criticism is that we have defined chemical weapons to mean chemical weapons, there is no charge to refute. If TIC wishes to waste parliament's time on this spurious campaign, then we have no means to stop them. Bug spray is not a chemical weapon. Neither is ice cream. |
| Date | 21:42:00, August 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Surely something with the appetite-reducing capacity of ice cream is a chemical weapon! |
| Date | 22:54:19, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Given that the current ban on "chemical weapons" is very vague and therefore extensive, any chemical with a significant potential and likelihood to be used as a weapon should reasonably be included in the ban. Ice cream has a primary purpose other than (directly) harming other organisms. Pesticides do not. Tear gas does not. We have presented a case, you have refused to contradict any of it. We do not classify ice cream as a chemical weapon, that is your invention, Mr. Cameron, not ours. |
| Date | 01:54:09, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Has anyone seen the health effects of long term exposure to ice-cream? It causes thrombosis, heart failure and excessive weight gain. Clearly it is a chemical weapon, and nearly as dangerous as lasagna. |
| Date | 04:08:44, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Does it have a practical application to warfare? If so... |
| Date | 04:40:02, August 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Of course it does, haven't you heard of exploding ice cream shells, ice cream gas, ice cream sludge, and dirty ice cream nuclear bombs? |
| Date | 04:46:08, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | "Of course, it appears the leadership of the CNT/AFL have spent most of their lives in a cave." As the leadership of Tuesday Is Coming has not heard of any of those weapons, it appears we have as well... |
| Date | 06:02:44, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | ice cream with real lemons, we find, is so often superior to the cheap garbage you buy in the stores. |
| Date | 06:10:56, August 05, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | ((That is your fault for buying cheap garbage. Try good Belgium Ice cream.)) |
| Date | 14:48:19, August 06, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Could this be either moved to vote or cancelled? |
| Date | 21:23:21, August 06, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Why should it be removed so quickly? Other such bills were not. |
| Date | 00:53:38, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Eh. Why not? Im sure that GA will be voted "innocent"...Not a matter of justice but politics... |
| Date | 01:47:27, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | The problem is voting for a cabinet that includes equitista as always. |
| Date | 02:19:10, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Sorry about that...At least this will get bumped by the election I guess. Equitista was included, as he is in the current cabinet. This wasnt about him, but GA. |
| Date | 08:07:35, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | We see that no one wants to make an enemy of Green Advantage...They can be quite persistent... |
| Date | 20:19:54, August 07, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Removing Silver Cameron from the Cabinet, for Perverting and Redefining the Law to Suit Personal Interests |
| Message | Principles are principles. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 67 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 366 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 17 |
| 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: "The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems, the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behaviour and religion." - John Maynard Keynes |