Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: May 5461
Next month in: 02:32:00
Server time: 09:27:59, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): aai14 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union 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 2613

Description[?]:

An act to limit the police's power of crowd dispersal.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date05:56:14, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageDo we allow police to arrest a person for being a "potential murderer"? Of course not. We have a presumption of innocence. People must be allowed to act freely until they have committed a crime. We cannot go and curtail their rights simply because of "potential" problems. No, there must be no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.

Date05:56:18, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageI actually have to say no to this. The wording is wrong.

Date05:57:58, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageEr.. the wording of what?

Date05:58:45, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageThe proposal. You are right that it limits it but it makes sure that the police cannot be called in for a violent protest.

Date05:59:46, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageIt does no such thing. When a group becomes violent, they are committing crimes. When they are subsequently arrested, it is not because of their assembly, but because of their positive act of committing a crime.

Date06:03:31, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageThe current law makes sure that it does not turn violent.

Date06:06:03, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageBy arbitrarily restricting people's rights. It is unacceptable.

Date06:07:51, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWhat right is being restricted? They are still free to meet and protest. All this does is give the police the right to disperse if and only if there is a potential risk to public safety. With the proposed, that is taken away and more people will get hurt.

Date06:12:24, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageTherein lies the problem though. People are allowed to gather peacefully with no intent to commit any crimes, and some policeman can come along and decide that there is some potential risk, and require them to disperse. Their right to peaceful assembly is restricted to the arbitrary judgement of the police.

Date06:15:22, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageYou have little faith in police do you not?

Date06:20:09, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessagePolice aren't very smart people, by and large.

Date06:20:38, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageI know many cops and they are smarter than you are.

Date06:21:28, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageOf course you think people who fail college exams can be smart, so you're probably not the best arbiter of intelligence.

Date06:26:07, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWOW!! Just WOW!! How stupid can you really get Judicial Union? That entire sentence takes the freakin' cake.

Date06:40:59, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageAnd what makes you think that these people failed their college exams?

Date06:41:59, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageCollege being high school, not college being university.

Date06:46:13, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageAs i said, what makes you think they failed their college exams?

Date06:49:18, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageYou and your fiance both did badly on your college exams. One you assume that you think you and your fiance are intelligent. Therefore...

Date06:54:21, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageBy college you mean college right?

As to intelligence, I do not need a test to tell me my intelligence. I already know that I am a highly intelligent person. Obviously for if I was not, I would not be able to be where I am at now to become a teacher nor would he be in grad school. I guess that shows that SATs are indeed meaningless.

I'm done with this for now. It is quite obvious I am arguing with someone who has little idea what intelligence entails.

Date06:56:16, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageThat's good, because it's not really relevant to the issue at hand, namely, arbitrary restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly.

Date06:58:15, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageActually it is relevent as you are the one that first brought up in an abstract way when you were talking of human judgement which relies on intelligence to make said judgement.

Date07:00:59, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageEssential human rights should not be restricted by some member of the police. That is not what they are there for.

Date07:05:24, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageNo right is being restricted Judicial Union.

Date07:06:27, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWell, as we explained before, the right of peaceful assembly is.

Date07:12:50, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageNo it isn't. Sorry but you truly are wrong here. I guess you failed your intelligence test.

Date07:14:21, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWell, it simply is. Police can force people to move on, ie, stop assembling peacefully, for no reason except a potential risk. That is a restriction.

Date07:17:03, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageAnd letting a situatin fester till it goes out of control is better?

Date07:21:07, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageOr how about only stepping in when someone commits a crime, you know, like they're meant to.

Date07:22:37, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageAnd what makes you think that they will stop a peaceful protest? You still have not proved that.

Date07:24:22, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageBecause they're given the power to.

Date07:25:59, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageThat's not an answer Judicial Union. Just because someone has the power to do something does not equal tha they will use said power. Tell me, what makes you think that they will stop a peaceful protest?

Date07:28:25, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageBecause they're given the power to. Police will go to the ends of the limits of their power. If you give them tasers, they will use tasers. If you give them guns, they will use guns. It's all very well to say that "oh, police would never abuse their powers", but surely you've seen the innocent protester being tazed (ie, the "don't taze me bro" guy). The fact is, you can be guaranteed that police will use their powers if they are given them.

Date07:31:39, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageSo in other words, you can't prove that they will abuse the power outside of the argument "because they have the power and cops always abuse it" mantra.

Date07:36:14, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageYou can't prove something that hasn't yet happened matey.

Date07:40:11, July 26, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageThank you. That is all I needed you to say. If it has not happened yet then there is no need to change it. You just destroyed your own argument thanks to superior intellect.

Date08:27:03, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWell not quite. Every time this power is exercised, the right is breached.

Date14:20:41, July 26, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWell done Hello Kitty Party. Well done. You got the Judicial Union Party to finally admit that the power had not been abused even though he claims that they will.

Judicial Union? You stated yourself that it has not been abused even though throughout the entire debate you claim that they will abuse it. This has been on the books for awhile now and by your own admission, the police had not abused their power.

And she is right. No right is being denied here.

Date14:48:16, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWe never said it had never been abused. We cannot prove this because records are not available to us.

And no, neither she nor you are right. Human rights are being denied, and it is wrong.

Date15:09:20, July 26, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
Message"You can't prove something that hasn't yet happened matey."

Which was in response to:

"So in other words, you can't prove that they will abuse the power outside of the argument "because they have the power and cops always abuse it" mantra."

So yes you basically did say that the power has not been abused for when asked for proof, you stated that it has not happened yet.

And you are definitely wrong Judicial Union. The right to assemble is there and it has not been bothered at all by the police by your own admission.

Date15:44:41, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
Message"...you can't prove that they will abuse the power..." refers to the future, otherwise the HKP would've said "...you can't prove that they have abused their power..." hence: "you can't prove something that hasn't yet happened". The future hasn't yet happened, so you can prove anything about it.

Date16:37:30, July 26, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageExcept that they already have the power that is being debated so yea, you can actually prove the assertion that they will abuse said power. Something which you said: "You can't prove something that hasn't yet happened matey."

You can in this case. How? Because the police already have the power to disperse a crowd if there is a threat to public safety. Public safety is a dubious term in this case for it goes across many spectrums. Hello Kitty is right that the freedom to assemble is not being restricted. You said it is because the current law gives them power to abuse. She said prove it and you said you can not prove something that has not happened yet. You really have stuck your foot in your mouth this time Judicial Union for you can prove that the police have abused said power and you are now on record as stating that the power has not been abused.

Maybe you should tell your lawyer friends that you just got schooled by a teacher.

Date16:42:45, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageYou clearly don't quite understand the idea of tense.

Date16:46:21, July 26, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageYou clearly do not understand the meaning of words.

Date16:50:04, July 26, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageOoh harsh, harsh...

Ok, if you don't think that the law about crowd dispersal is a restriction on the right to assembly, then you should be happy to vote for a law saying "there are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups".

Date16:57:30, July 26, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWhy should I vote for something that makes sure that the police cannot disperse a crowd if a thunderstorm is approaching?

Date01:18:38, July 27, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageRather an odd example, but surely people can decide whether they want to be outside during a storm on their own. There's nothing stopping police from informing people of a storm, and advising (ie, not requiring) them to leave and take shelter.

Date01:42:27, July 27, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageAs such, they are performing a public duty because of the potential risk to public safety.

Date01:47:57, July 27, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessagePeople should be allowed to assemble in groups during a storm, if they so desire.

Date13:48:24, July 27, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageSo you would love them to be struck and killed by lightening. No!

Date14:06:21, July 27, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessagePeople can make decisions for themselves.

Date14:21:20, July 27, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageBut I thought you said you cared about the safety of our civilians?

Date23:14:46, July 27, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageThe government only has a role in preventing harms caused by one person to another. The government has no place preventing a citizen carrying out actions that may harm themselves.

Date00:34:50, July 28, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageYou know a thunderstorm can cause a person to do harm to another?

Date05:09:55, July 28, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageNot really...

Date13:19:14, July 28, 2008 CET
FromLiberty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageI guess you never seen what running people do to eachother.

Date23:51:46, July 28, 2008 CET
FromHello Kitty Party
ToDebating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act
MessageWell I do say that this was a smashing defeat.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 162

no
    

Total Seats: 283

abstain
 

Total Seats: 55


Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting.

Random quote: "[In the West] unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban." - George Orwell

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 107