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: Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: July 2113
Description[?]:
| This bill protects our citizens against law enforcement abuses. It allows the suspect to retain his basic civil rights during a police investigation. The suspect will be protected against any illegal police procedures such as interregations where no charges have been filed against by the suspect, forcing a confession under stressfull circumstances. 2) By law a lawyer must be present during any police investigation, and during the questioning of the suspect. 3) Allows the suspect to gather their own information for their defense and allows for any police abuses to be tried in a criminal court of law. This bill solidifies the civil rights of our citizens against police abuses and gives the suspect a fair and legal defense against any police investigation.. This bill also investigates abuses by the police. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Right to privacy.
Old value:: Individuals have a right to privacy, but the courts can force individuals to give information on certain matters if needed. (also known as Habeas Data).
Current: Individuals have a right to privacy, but the courts can force individuals to give information on certain matters if needed. (also known as Habeas Data).
Proposed: Individuals have a right to privacy, to keep records and information for themselves.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:07:08, September 11, 2005 CET | From |   Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | Lets give our citizens legal rights against police abuses, and the full protection of our laws during investigations. |
| Date | 14:30:46, September 11, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | Under the proposed changes if a person is arrested then they cannot be made to give evidence of any sort. People's right to privacy is important but in criminal proceedings it is better that the trial is fair and all the idence is available then to allow people to escape prosectution, or alternatively be prosectuted wrongly, by holding back vital evidence. |
| Date | 14:39:47, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | If they are not directly involved in, or charged with any crime, then they have the right to hold back self incriminating evidence. But if there is a solid case against the suspect, then the legal system will proceed as normal. This bill protects those who have not been charged with a crime, or the evidence against the suspect is very weak. This bill will reduce the number of innocent people going to jail because the police must now focus on building a solid case with facts and evidence, rather than a coerced confession. |
| Date | 17:12:02, September 11, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | The fact still stands - the proposal makes it impossible for the justice system to force a person to give information EVEN if it is needed in court. The description only makes sense under the current law and we can only support it if the proposal is removed. |
| Date | 17:29:05, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Left Communist Party | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | We shall accept, although the United Blobs party does have a good point. |
| Date | 18:08:55, September 11, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | We support the UB. The change in the law that is being attempted to be introduced would cause more problems than it would save. To quote from a previous bill: "I'll paint a hypothetical picture, hopefully this will explain the problems I have with this bill: Person A is under investigation, say for stealing a car. He has no evidence to prove his whereabouts proving he was not involved. Person B has proof that Person A was not in a position to steal said car as Person B was with Person A at the time. Both the above persons are having an affair. Person B is married. Under present law Person B would be required to show said evidence, and so acquit Person A of any wrong doing, however under the proposed changes Person B would not be forced to show said evidence. Person B doesn't want to allow person C to know they have had an affair, so withholds evidence, which they are perfectly entitled to do as those records are for themselves only. Person A is sent to gaol. Anyone else have a problem with that arrangement?" |
| Date | 18:17:50, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | But this is where law enforcement determines the facts with suffucient evidence and convicts the right suspect.. This bill protects against illegal police coercions and gives the suspect basic legal protection that they noramaly wouldn't have known they had. |
| Date | 18:17:55, September 11, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | We'll support the UBs. If the police are 'abusing' any system, that, rather than the legislation, must be addressed first. |
| Date | 18:24:12, September 11, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | If the information that the Police require is held by an individual, the Police know they have that information, but they do not have to hand it over, it makes the Police investigation much more difficult if not impossible. As the USM says "If the police are 'abusing' any system, that, rather than the legislation, must be addressed first. " |
| Date | 18:27:24, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | The best way to stop abuse is through legislation. If there are no laws then the abuse will continue, therefore legislation is the first place to start. |
| Date | 18:34:46, September 11, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | But the current proposal is not at fault. The only requirement would be an extension and clarification of the existing law to stop any abuse (though we do not believe that the Hobrazian Judiciary and Police are involved in any abuse of their powers currently) not a change in the proposal. |
| Date | 02:20:17, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Hobrazian Civil Liberties Act. |
| Message | Ouch! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 78 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 322 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Use a valid e-mail address for your Particracy account. If the e-mail address you entered does not exist, your account may be suspected of multi-accounting and inactivated. |
| Random quote: "I am loyal to the ideas, not to the institutions." - Cyro Aquila, former Selucian politician |