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: Education (Racial Segregation) 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 2614
Description[?]:
An act to remove restrictions from private education providers. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning racial segregation in educational institutions.
Old value:: Segregation is illegal in all educational institutions.
Current: Segregation is illegal in all educational institutions.
Proposed: Public educational institutions cannot be segregated, private institutions can choose to apply a policy of segregation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 07:44:34, July 28, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | It goes without saying that public educational institutions must be open to all people, but why should we be regulating private institutions. These are ones founded with private money, by private actors, for private goals. Nowhere is the government involved, and nowhere should it be. We must not decide who a private organisation must accept, we must allow them to choose for themselves. |
Date | 13:24:43, July 28, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | We don't support state segregation. We support private organisations having the choice to do as they wish with their own money. We cannot decide how individuals want to spend their money, individuals must be free. |
Date | 13:32:12, July 28, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | So all your talk about equality is repugnant. As is your talk about freedom. Discrimination =/= freedom. Discrimination == oppression. We must not allow this to go through. |
Date | 13:37:57, July 28, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | Discrimination by the state is oppression, we couldn't agree with you more there. We would oppose strongly any move by the government to discriminate.
On the other hand, we are preventing individuals from choosing who they want to associate themselves with. That is contrary to freedom.
Tukarali has a number of Gaduri immigrants, who fled from their oppressive government. They on average do more poorly at school than Tukarali-born children, so one might suspect that they need additional help. It would be forbidden for a school specifically tailored to these Gaduri immigrants to be set up however. But why should it? That is all this law does, it prevents private organisations from choosing who they want to set up their school for. |
Date | 13:40:25, July 28, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | Ah now I see. You are doing this because of racism. Something else that needs to be stamped out. Any form of segregation is oppression and antithema to the ideals of Tukarali. |
Date | 13:58:09, July 28, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | Only a racist would think that way. We all know that you are one so you can stop pretending now. You forget though that we are not restricting individual choices in who they wish to associate with. In education, seperate but equal is wrong regardless of reason. Did you fail that lesson in your attorny classes or did you not show up for that one? |
Date | 14:08:58, July 28, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | All people, regardless of any personal characteristics (except perhaps age, everyone ignores age when talking about discrimination unfortunately) can attend a state school. There shall be no discrimination there.
The question here is whether a private organisation should be able to spend its money on providing for a particular racial group. Who are we to say "no, you must spend it on all races". Who are we to tell people how to spend their money? |
Date | 12:10:16, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | " Individual people cannot violate human rights"
Segregation violates human rights. You really need to watch what you say because it will come back to haunt you. Thank you for seeing my pov on the subject. I move that this bill is withdrawn from the floor. |
Date | 12:17:31, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | No, government enforced segregation does. Seriously, how often does it have to be repeated before you understand: human rights are only binding on the government.
You can move however you like, this bill is going to a vote in due time. |
Date | 12:19:58, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | How stupid do you think I have to be to actually believe your nonsense? You do know that if this somehow passes (and it probably will not) that we will be, in essences, supporting segregation? By us supporting segregation, we are violating human rights. Is that simple enough to understand? |
Date | 12:28:58, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | What part of "private institutions can" do you not understand? If we tolerate it in private institutions, we will be violating a human right to equal education. I see you do not understand that. |
Date | 12:35:48, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | No, we do not understand that, because it is wrong.
We provide state funded education to all people, regardless of personal characteristics. Every person has an opportunity to get an education this way.
Some private institutions also wish to provide education to certain groups of students. No government money goes into this. It is separate from the government. They should be allowed to target whatever students they wish.
Are we going to require that people have friends of a range of ethnicities too? We can't allow private citizens to discriminate against the races of their friends, for apparently that's a breach of human rights. |
Date | 12:39:14, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | And there you go trying to deflect debate again. When a person deflects debate, it shows that they have no point to make.
If we tolerate segregation in any segment, we will be violating human rights. Your mumbo jumbo is just ludicrous. Do try to do better. |
Date | 12:50:05, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | But you're just wrong. We tolerate people choosing who they wish to associate with all the time, because that is entirely their choice.
Individuals choose their sexual partners based on gender, and sometimes race and age; workingman's clubs allow only men in; women's refuge type organisations only allow women and children in; we have support groups for homosexuals, the disabled, people of certain religions, people of certain races. We allow them to do all this because they are private organisations, and can set whatever rules they wish. It would be a far different story if they were receiving government funds, in which case we would be supporting discrimination, but just allowing them to set their own rules is no such thing. |
Date | 12:54:50, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | You tolerate people's right to violate human rights. That is not what we as a government tolerate. We have the obligation to see to it that everyone is treated fairly. This does not treat anyone fairly but allows for segregation and discrimination. No we are not wrong in our assessment.
The last part is truly inconsequential to the debate. |
Date | 13:01:03, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | It is exactly on point. Private individuals discriminate in every part of life every day, and we view it as fine. This matter here is no different. Private organisations must be allowed to choose who they spend their money on. |
Date | 17:35:00, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | Actually no it is not. Gentlemen clubs allow anyone age appropriate into it. Same with ladys clubs. So that point is moot. As to women's shelters, would you want men in there since the majority of women who go there have been beaten by their boyfriends and husbands? I have no idea what this talk of support groups for homosexuals is. Everyone has a support group for something, including sex addicts.
The point is indeed inconsequential when logic is put to them. |
Date | 23:17:51, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Education (Racial Segregation) Amendment Act | Message | Workingman's clubs are not gentleman's clubs.
Women's refuges discriminate, but apparently you think it's ok there. Seems like a bit of inconsistency. What happened to your brand of human rights whereby a private organisation discriminating is a breach of human rights? |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
Vote |
Seats |
yes | Total Seats: 162 |
no | Total Seats: 283 |
abstain | Total Seats: 55 |
Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
Random quote: "Difference of religion breeds more quarrels than difference of politics." - Wendell Phillips |