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: Ammendment to Conscription
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party for Equality
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: September 2117
Description[?]:
| While the LPE has no wish to change the current conscription laws drastically, feeling conscription (regrettably) to be sometimes necessary when worldwide conflict breaks out, we wish to introduce a clause to the legislation that allows a way out to conscientious objectors. Anybody who does not want to be conscripted must fill in a form detailing their reasons for not wanting to fight and listing their skills. They will then be put to work in some civilian task within the army, such as telecommunications, medical services or catering. We also wish to introduce the following clause to ensure that the power of conscription is not abused by any single member of the cabinet. Conscription at any time must be approved both by the HoS AND the Defence minister before it can be implemented. We feel confident that there will be many who would not sign up voluntarily, but would not resort to these measures if conscripted, thus ensuring that a large army can still be called up, while simletaneously allowing those who object strongly to refrain from front line battle. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:24:15, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ammendment to Conscription |
| Message | The problem is, the 'default' position is conscripted. Thus, UNLESS you have filled in the paper-work, you are assumed to be ready to fight-and-die for any given military engagement. There are Likatonian citizens who do not WANT to be involved in ANY position that furthers a conflict, under certain circumstances. OOC: Imagine if the US has conscription, and was making all US citizens serve, either on the front-line, or in support. SOmething like 70% of the population opposes the 'war in Iraq' - and yet THIS kind of legislation would be forcing those people to serve such a war, in one capacity or another. |
| Date | 19:52:47, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Ammendment to Conscription |
| Message | It is all very well opposing war. I do it all the time. But if you are foolish enough to enter into one, then it is not so easy to get out of it, and sometimes people have to realise that the point at which they were fighting for their administration's policies can, once the war starts to be lost, pass to the point at which they are defending their land and fellow citizens. |
| Date | 20:16:31, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ammendment to Conscription |
| Message | But, shouldn't the individual be allowed to choose, whether they want to lay their life on the line? SHould you not be able to refuse to lend your support to any given engagement IF you are not already in service? Obviously, even the AAP can see that a soldier ALREADY serving, doesn't get to choose which theatre of war appeals... but shouldn't civilians get the option to not have to fight what they view as unjust wars? And shouldn't that be the default, rather than something they have to specifically petition? |
| Date | 20:25:35, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ammendment to Conscription |
| Message | Another thought occurs to the AAP: Situations where citizens defend their own land and fellow citizens, are very different from wars overseas. Far more people will become volunteers in defending against a home-invasion, because their lives are on the line, anyway. We cannot see resisting home-invasions as a good reason to allow conscription. |
| Date | 00:22:20, September 26, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Ammendment to Conscription |
| Message | We understand the AAP's concerns, but regret that in this case we still feel security to be more important than liberty. It is the time factor for passing bills that troubles us, otherwise we would be happy only to allow conscription when we get into a situation when we will need it, making the decision to conscript democratic. However, 8 months is too long if we are in a war situation. Therefore the LPE proposes to add the following clause to the ammendment: Conscription at any time must be approved both by the HoS and the Defence minister before it can be implemented. Feedbakc on this from other parties would be appreciated, so that we can decide if the inclusion of such a clause would damage the prospects of the bill. |
| Date | 00:27:39, September 26, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Ammendment to Conscription |
| Message | The AAP intends to make an amendment to our own "Kill the Draft" legislation... check it shortly to see if you find a potential compromise. |
| Date | 11:24:48, September 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Ammendment to Conscription |
| Message | It seems to wait for other opinions would be to wait forever. So we vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 205 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
| Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification. |
| Random quote: "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind." - Winston Churchill |