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: Liberty Protection Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Republics 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: January 2418
Description[?]:
| Allows greater freedom in public |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government position in respect to crossdressing policy.
Old value:: Crossdressing is prohibited by the state.
Current: Crossdressing is allowed.
Proposed: Crossdressing is allowed.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Current: All sexually implicit actions are illegal in public.
Proposed: There are no laws regarding obscene public acts.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:05:13, June 21, 2007 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | Although we are opposed to public sexual intercourse, we could be persuaded to vote in favor of this bill. We believe that forbidding crossdressing is beyond the state's jurisdiction. |
| Date | 22:42:40, June 21, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | We can agree to Article 1. Article 2 makes us a little uneasy, but we would most likely support this proposal as is. |
| Date | 23:43:40, June 21, 2007 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | This does not allow greater freedom, it allows total freedom, regardless of the effects upon others. Although we would back article one alone, we cannot possibly consider the second article. |
| Date | 00:46:39, June 22, 2007 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | This is throwing Lodamun into a state of immorality, this will perverse society and destroy us from within. We will oppose at all costs. |
| Date | 02:09:57, June 22, 2007 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | Women wearing trousers will not destroy our society. |
| Date | 08:11:14, June 22, 2007 CET | From | Communist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | The CPL supports this bill. |
| Date | 14:44:41, June 22, 2007 CET | From | Democrats | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | We are annoyed that the URP did not consider splitting the Bill. |
| Date | 23:59:40, June 22, 2007 CET | From | The Unified Lodamun Party | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | Seriously, you just cannot allow sexual intercourse in public. That's ridiculous even for Europeans. |
| Date | 03:25:26, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Independent Republican Party | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | How would you like to see people engaging in sex in public? I know I wouldn't, especially if there were little kids around. |
| Date | 06:07:52, June 23, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Liberty Protection Act |
| Message | It depends, who's having the sex? Seriously, we agree with the MRP, but since nudity and gratuitous sex are allowed on television, how much different is this? We may have to disinfect more park benches, perhaps... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 238 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 361 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." - Charles de Gaulle |