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: Freedom to Protest and Gather Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: February 2095
Description[?]:
| 1) This bill allows for the gathering of large groups pf people for whatever reason without fear of harassment from the police. These gatherings may include public protests of a certain issue, music festival, political protest, and other large gatherings. Police should only have the right to disperse a crowd after any act of violence or other criminal offense takes place, and not because it may take place. The current law allows police to disperse a peaceful protest or any large gathering without any evidence of criminal activity. This stifles the freedom of assembly and violates the civil rights of those protesters. 2) In order for a group of more then 50 people to gather in a certain area for any gathering they must first notify their local council and ex[lain the type of gathering, when it's taking place and estimated amount of people gathering. They will then recieve a permit permitting them to gather legally. Any group or person may apply for a permit and unless public unrest is a stated reason for a permit they will be issued. Groups without permits will be dispersed by the police. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Current: The police may only disperse a crowd if a state of emergency has been declared.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:47:16, August 10, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | There are still certain measures taken to ensure public safety.But as of now police can disperse a group for no other reason in that they may pose a risk even if they have no evidence to back up their claim. This ensures every citizen the right to protest legally and peacefully without fear of police dispersment. |
| Date | 17:56:29, August 10, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | We 100% agree with you. |
| Date | 18:55:35, August 10, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | No, the current law is sufficient. At present the Police have to have evidence that a group is a risk to public safety before it can be dispersed, all this bill description does is extend those already in effect. |
| Date | 19:02:20, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | Where in the current bill does it say they need evidence? Currently certain groups would be disbanded for no other reason except they are members of a fringe political organization that police think may get violent, but haven't commited any illegal act. On the other hand a group gathering for "we love the police day" will have no problems while the radical types will get dispersed . It's unfair I believe. |
| Date | 19:04:09, August 10, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | "This law does not empower the Police to disband any groups without provocation, or without probable cause, nor does it allow for intervention within an organised assembly of persons, be the gathering of a political or social nature, without afforementioned cause." |
| Date | 19:11:43, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | Then wouldn't changing the law make sense if the current law is different then the wording that is in the actual law? "Dispersing for potential risk" is quite different then the wording that you just posted. It's still a little tricky with the "afforementioned cause" which could be just about anything. I think it will be wiser to have evidence of cause rather then potential cause as the law to disband. |
| Date | 20:31:46, August 10, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | We'll support. |
| Date | 00:51:34, August 11, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | The current law isn't different to the current law. The current law states that "The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety." hence the police have a provocation, which is covered within the existing article. |
| Date | 09:41:11, August 11, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Freedom to Protest and Gather Act. |
| Message | *Different to the current proposal even...* |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 178 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 174 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 48 |
| Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation. |
| Random quote: "The trouble with communism is the communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the Christians" - Henry Louis Mencken |