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: Restrictions on Local Curfews
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2121
Description[?]:
| Tuesday Is Coming holds that the government is only responsible for doing certain things, and that, when possible, these things should be handled by the governments closest to the people. If a curfew is ever instituted, it will be subject to the following restrictions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Police precincts shall be allowed to set, or not set, curfew times for citizens in those areas. This shall apply to all citizens within an age range specified by each precinct. The Age ranges and curfew times shall not be permitted to be outside of the following parameters: Start time cannot be any earlier than 12:00AM(midnight) End time cannot be any later than 6:00AM Adults older than twenty-five years of age shall never be subject to any curfew This bill is identical to: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=11477 |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:59:26, September 07, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | Absolutely not, more statist restrictions that the careerist Port Andalay politicians are trying to pass. Why would anyone who is legally an adult, but under 25 years old be subjected to a curfew? |
| Date | 00:52:03, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | We opposed then, we still oppose now. This is an unacceptable imposition on the personal freedoms of our citizens. It is acceptable that a court orders a curfew on a specific individual, but not that a generalised curfew is imposed. Freedom of movement and freedom of assembly are fundamental rights to our mind. |
| Date | 01:59:54, September 08, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | (Right now they cannot order a curfew on a specific individual) |
| Date | 02:05:24, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | This bill is not a pro-curfew bill, this is a bill to devolve curfews to the appropriate level of government. As a check on this power, certain restrictions are placed on it. |
| Date | 18:45:45, October 03, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | Would anybody support this bill without the proposal, if all it does is specify curfew limitations should a curfew be devolved in the future? |
| Date | 16:53:30, October 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | We would support leaving curfew definitions entirely up to the local community involved. |
| Date | 17:27:20, October 04, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | We feel that they should have this power, but that if so, it should be prevented from being abused. |
| Date | 02:30:49, October 05, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | I understand that this means the Refuseniks, PCL, and CNT/AFL support unrestricted curfews? |
| Date | 03:47:23, October 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | The CNT/AFL support no legislation that implicitly states curfews may be applied in the future. |
| Date | 03:57:44, October 05, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Restrictions on Local Curfews |
| Message | This is in the event that they are. This does nothing to create or abolish curfews, but only to place certain restrictions on them in the event that they are ever applied. This would be like a party creating legislation to prevent execution of Union leaders, if unions were ever abolished in the future. Parties supporting would not be supporting abolition of unions, they would be opposing execution of union leaders. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 129 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 83 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 66 |
| Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
| Random quote: "You cannot open a book without learning something." - Confucius |