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
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Current: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 05:56:14, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Do 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. |
Date | 05:59:46, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | It 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. |
Date | 06:07:51, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | What 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. |
Date | 06:12:24, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Therein 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. |
Date | 06:54:21, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | By 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. |
Date | 06:58:15, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Actually 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. |
Date | 07:25:59, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | That'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? |
Date | 07:28:25, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Because 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. |
Date | 07:40:11, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Thank 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. |
Date | 14:20:41, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Well 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. |
Date | 14:48:16, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | We 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. |
Date | 15:09:20, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating 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. |
Date | 15:44:41, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating 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. |
Date | 16:37:30, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Except 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. |
Date | 16:50:04, July 26, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Ooh 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". |
Date | 01:18:38, July 27, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | Rather 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. |
Date | 23:14:46, July 27, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Police (Crowd Dispersal) Amendment Act | Message | The 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. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
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 |