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: Ma'avak Practical Civil Liberties
Details
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: January 2561
Description[?]:
| "In response the the cooperative efforts of the GJA we propose this bill in order to meet some of their demands." -- Nesí Hamdiná Tamir Kirschenbaum |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may disperse a group without giving any reason.
Current: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Proposed: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government position in respect to crossdressing policy.
Old value:: Crossdressing is prohibited by the state.
Current: Crossdressing is allowed.
Proposed: Crossdressing is allowed.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Only divorces that comply with religious doctrine are legal.
Current: The government has no policy on the legality of divorces.
Proposed: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the initiation of divorces (if allowed).
Old value:: Local governments decide who can initiate a divorce.
Current: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Proposed: Either partner may initiate a divorce.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:46:39, April 12, 2008 CET | From | New Socialist Agenda | To | Debating the Ma'avak Practical Civil Liberties |
| Message | "While we would prefer no restrictions at all, as a compromise, we would rather a state of emergency a prerequisite for dispersing a crowd, as bias may come into the picture when stating that any particular group "poses a potential risk to public safety." Especially since there is no objective rule on this defined. However, as it is better than the status quo, and there are other proposals we support, we vote in favor." -Raamiah Galgenstrick, Chairman of the GJA Foreign Minister of the SJHB |
| Date | 23:48:51, April 12, 2008 CET | From | Am Echad, Pays Libre | To | Debating the Ma'avak Practical Civil Liberties |
| Message | I disagree with article 3 but will vote yes anyway but will change it later. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 400 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too." - Oscar Levant |