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: Assurance of Civil Rights
Details
Submitted by[?]: CSA Pax et Socialism
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: August 2446
Description[?]:
| FURTHERING and strengthening the civil rights of the people of Dolgaria. TESTING regulated cosmetic products on animals is not animal cruelty when regulated products are clearly defined (It is like - will this shampoo create green hair? It's not like, will this shampoo kill?) DEFINING "Animals" by animal hair, and or animal bodies donated to science, as well as live animals. Dangerous products, because it is a regulated system, are not tested on live animals to endanger their lives. ADOPTING children should be done freely as long as the parental unit is observed to be a decent one fit as guardian to a dependent. PUBLISHING falsehoods is protected by the freedom of speech. If libel is published however, the media is prepared to face possible lawsuits. If media states within disclaimer what is published is false, they are protected by law. *We have good civil rights as it is, so it was actually a bit difficult to create this bill. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Current: Adoption policy is to be established by local governments.
Proposed: Regulation is used to screen out only those with a previous history of child abuse.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in cosmetics research.
Old value:: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Current: Animals may not be used for testing cosmetics products.
Proposed: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is regulated.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding regulation of media content.
Old value:: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Current: There are no content regulations; the media may publish anything, even proven falsehoods.
Proposed: There are no content regulations; the media may publish anything, even proven falsehoods.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:31:14, August 22, 2007 CET | From | Cosa Nostra | To | Debating the Assurance of Civil Rights |
| Message | How does using animals to test cosmetics and publishing proven falsehoods assure my civil rights? |
| Date | 00:48:29, August 23, 2007 CET | From | CSA Pax et Socialism | To | Debating the Assurance of Civil Rights |
| Message | Researchers have the right to test products on animals with regulation. The media can publish freely whatever they want, freedom of speech and of the press. |
| Date | 02:08:43, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Cosa Nostra | To | Debating the Assurance of Civil Rights |
| Message | That doesn't really answer my question, does it? |
| Date | 02:16:45, August 23, 2007 CET | From | CSA Pax et Socialism | To | Debating the Assurance of Civil Rights |
| Message | Yes it does.... Explain your question better. |
| Date | 02:22:26, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Assurance of Civil Rights |
| Message | on the other hand you could say animals should have rights not to be tested on and people should have the right to not have blatent falsehoods printed against them |
| Date | 02:58:43, August 23, 2007 CET | From | CSA Pax et Socialism | To | Debating the Assurance of Civil Rights |
| Message | Finally some debate. "animals should have rights not to be tested on" Yes, I am for animal rights. Civil rights applies only to people, hence the name Civil Rights. But for the same reason that I am for animal rights is that I made it regulated. From how I know it, deceased animals can be tested on. Or maybe just their fur. Or maybe the fur of live animals. Not these are cosmetic products, and not gun testing. The products that can be tested on live animals however, are of course regulated. If we put poison in a shampoo, we know we shouldn't give it to an animal. The right animals will be tested for the right products. For example, we don't feed dogs a new brand of chocolate, because that's not good. "people should have the right to not have blatent falsehoods printed against them" You could also say people have to right to not get cheated by corporations, but without a minimum wage, they do. But before I start a new debate on what they "have the right not to," I will say, read our current bills. If blatant falsehoods are printed against people, they have the right to sue the company. If however a tabloid newspaper prints an article on Britney Spear, that's acceptable. She can also sue. There are different levels of media "lying" in the US government. If someone creates a newspaper that says "Kill the Jews," then that is considered largely dangerous hate speech, directing violence at one group. Also, if in US law newspapers compensate victims of false information created by them, and often run a follow up ad that states so. Tabloids, determined to get all the false gossip and create lies, do it to public figures, not private citizens. That is also one of our bills. |
| Date | 13:47:01, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Cosa Nostra | To | Debating the Assurance of Civil Rights |
| Message | I guess you have made your point, which only leads me to decide I do not agree. It is not because that's how it works in the US, that it is the right thing to do. Especially since we live in Dolgaria, here, in a RP-world where 'US' has no meaning whatsoever, actually. ;-) Of course, we have the right to sue when falsehoods are printed, but if the newspapers have the right to print falsehoods, what would the judge's verdict be, you reckon? And as for the animals: if 'regulated' means you can only test on dead animals, then we might agree, but there's no way to tell for sure. Moreover: to us animal rights prevail over the right to human progress. In other words: of course we agree with medical or other progress, but not at the cost of animals, especially since there are a hundred, harmless ways to do the testing ('in vitro' on pieces of human tissue, for instance). And don't come with the argument that that wouldn't give representative results, because even after testing on animals, you never know for sure what happens on humans. Unless we'd allow testing on humans as well, of course, but that would really make it very Aldous Huxleyish. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 245 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 228 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: There are two countries based on Egypt in the game. Cobura is based on modern Egypt with a retro twist, while Hawu Mumenhes is based on Ancient Egypt with a modernist twist. |
| Random quote: "Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better." - Niccolo Machiavelli |