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: Animal protection
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Authoritarian Movement
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 2477
Description[?]:
| We already had some aspects of this topic on discussion, but we think the old regulation was more the sense of animal protection. Furthermore, we want some basic rules for research, to prevent unnecessary cruelty against animals. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in cosmetics research.
Old value:: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is unregulated.
Current: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is regulated.
Proposed: The use of animals to test cosmetic products is regulated.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The use of animals in medical research.
Old value:: There are no restrictions on the use of animals for research.
Current: Animal research projects must apply for a license and submit to regulation.
Proposed: The use of animals in research is subject to basic regulations.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:13:39, October 27, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Animal protection |
| Message | *Stuart McCallum, Liberty's Shadow Science and Technology Minister addresses the Directory with his Party's reply after reviewing NAM's proposal* "We will support article 1, as we don't believe that corporations should develop products that are used in cosmetics that they believe may not be safe to use on a human. This might influence the market to push towards more organic sources, which will be beneficial to the environment. Articles 2 and 3 the Liberty Party has already defended, we are happy with our decision when we put forward those proposals and we're not going to debate it further. And finally, in regards to the final proposal, we cannot agree. Medical research to benefit humans should not be restricted by government bureaucracy. We understand your plight, but you won't have our support. In conclusion, removing the last 3 articles will guarantee Liberty's support." |
| Date | 09:36:22, October 27, 2007 CET | From | National Authoritarian Movement | To | Debating the Animal protection |
| Message | "The Loiberty Party knows that the government has the power to push this law through. Anyway, we're looking for a consense. We can talk about legalizing the keep of exotic animals. Nevertheless, we cannot support the keep of endangered animals. And to our final demand, we have to say that we cannot keep animal research unrestricted. We would like to set up some general, not too restrictive rules to prevent that all cruelty against animals can be declared as science." ~ Wilhelm Nassau, President. |
| Date | 10:21:59, October 27, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Animal protection |
| Message | "Protector-General, we did talk about the legalization of exotic animal keeping. It was passed into law. As you do not believe in individual responsibility and are so arrogant that you feel you and your party know what's best for the personal lives of Zardugalies, you disagreed then, and your disagreeing now. Medical research can't be restricted as this will hinder Zardugali scientist's ability to cure diseases that are killing Zardugalies, not lab rats." ~Stuart McCallum |
| Date | 14:26:17, October 27, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary Army Left Movement | To | Debating the Animal protection |
| Message | "We agree with NAM propose" |
| Date | 14:32:21, October 27, 2007 CET | From | National Authoritarian Movement | To | Debating the Animal protection |
| Message | "It is our last compromise on this topic to remove the two proposals regulating the private keep of animals. Nevertheless, we want some minor regulations on how to use animals for research." ~ Wilhelm Nassau, President of the Republic |
| Date | 05:07:50, October 28, 2007 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Animal protection |
| Message | "We can agree to this." ~Stuart McCallum |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 258 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 80 |
| 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: "Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe." - Edmund Burke |