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: Police de-Militarization Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Progressive Party
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: May 2553
Description[?]:
| Police force is trainned to mantain order, make sure that laws are not broken, find criminals and assit the population in emergency situations. Military force is trainned to kill. Current laws allow Military to be used in serious emergencies, but the law does not explicitly defines what these emergencies are. On the other hand, the governement has the power to declare the state of emergency. This means that the decision to use military forces as police, is enterilly up to the goverment. The government can decide that a large demonstration agains government policies is a serious emergency. The government can decide to send the military in to disperse or police the demonstration. People can get killed because they decided to protest. No goverment should have this power. In no circunstances militatary forces should be used against Hobrazian Nationals. Let our military be feared by our enemies, but not by our citizens. Ban the military from police functions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on the separation of the police and the military.
Old value:: A civilian police force is in place and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Current: A civilian police force is in place, backed up by the military.
Proposed: A civilian police force is in place and the military is not allowed to play any part in it.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 10:40:14, March 27, 2008 CET | From | Liberal Progressive Party | To | Debating the Police de-Militarization Act |
| Message | Dear Hobrazia parties, The LPP would like to introduce the debate concerning the de-militarization of the police force. We would like to hear the input from other parties before proceding to vote in order to improve the bill and gather the necessary agreement to approve it before submiting the bill to a vote. We thank in advance any input. Best regards to all. |
| Date | 14:24:19, March 28, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Police de-Militarization Act |
| Message | Whilst we understand the position of the LPP we feel that such a move would be foolhardy at best and plainly dangerous at worst. The current regulations stipulate that the armed forces can be utilised to assist the police during serious emergencies. This is not limited to just during state emergencies, although that is the primary reason for such a position, but when the police specifically request the assistance. The crucial part of the current legislation is that the armed forces may "help" in serious emergencies. They may not take control. In this regards the armed forces are deployed where the police want them and follow their instructions, not the other way around. Moreover, the government has safe guards in place so that a national emergency is only called when all the relevant departments agree. As, more often than not, these departments are under the control of multiple parties, not just the singular, it assists in maintaining a guard against introducing the military as de-facto police. We would also ask, who better than the government to decide when something is a national emergency? You have taken an extreme example, an example that has never occurred in over 500 years, to prove a strawman policy, and whilst we understand the reasoning behind it we feel we must decline support for this act and encourage the other parties of this nation to do the same. |
| Date | 14:38:41, March 28, 2008 CET | From | Liberal Progressive Party | To | Debating the Police de-Militarization Act |
| Message | The only emergencies that require the intervention of a force tranned to kill are those related with the restoration of public order. Emergencies that require the use of force. We totally disagree with the use of the military in such situations and we consider that a militar presence in the streets brings more harm than good. For all other emergencies, police, firemen, hospital personnel, etc... are more properlly equiped and trainned than the military. If the police can not handle an emergency situation, we should make sure we give them the right funds and means to deal with the situation. Bringing the military in is not the best solution. |
| Date | 19:36:37, March 28, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Police de-Militarization Act |
| Message | We disagree. The armed forces can be of great assistance in providing rescue services during floods and other natural disasters. Moreover, the armed forces have their own internal police, fire and medical personnel who assist in areas where there are large numbers of military personnel based in areas near population centres, not to mention the support such staff can provide in hospitals, air and sea rescues etc. To withdraw that assistance would be foolish and, quite possibly, life threatening. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 331 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 69 |
| Random fact: "Game mechanics comes first." For example, if a currently-enforced bill sets out one law, then a player cannot claim the government has set out a contradictory law. |
| Random quote: "The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." - Henry Kissinger |