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: Civil Rights
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Liberation Front of Hobrazia
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: August 2637
Description[?]:
| To uphold various civil rights. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to adultery.
Old value:: There is no explicit government policy on adultery.
Current: There is no explicit government policy on adultery.
Proposed: Adultery is legal.
Article 2
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 only disperse a crowd if a state of emergency has been declared.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning parental qualifications.
Old value:: The government requires a test for would-be parents, if parents circumvent the test they are allowed to keep the children, but are watched for incompentence.
Current: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Proposed: The government does not hold qualifications for new parents.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:59:35, September 13, 2008 CET | From |  (NWO) Church of Death | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | We will not support this bill. |
| Date | 02:44:31, September 14, 2008 CET | From | Hobrazian Extraordinary Gentlemen's Club | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | we will grant the support to this bill. |
| Date | 03:23:20, September 14, 2008 CET | From | First Party Of Hobrazia | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | We agree |
| Date | 12:17:15, September 14, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | We disagree with all aspects of this bill. 1. We expect all parents to be perfect, but when they are at fault we chastise them. Isn't it easier to find those parents that might cause harm to their children before they bare them? Moreover, the current legislation does not immediately remove children from parents who circumvent such testing, but provides additional security to those children. In the end, the rights of the children, the future of this nation, circumvent the rights of the parent. 2. Whilst we have no issues with citizens joining in groups, be these for birthdays, anniversaries, or political statements, we must not allow those same citizens to be of danger to others. The current legislation allows for any groups to form and they only be interfered with should they be a danger to public safety. This is a sensible approach as it protects the rights of the majority and the rights of the majority and public safety must take precedence. Allowing rioting groups to form, especially when there is forewarning, would be foolish and costly. 3. Adultery is not any of the governments business and as such the government should keep out of the private lives of the its citizens. This is an individuals choice and should be dealt with at an individual level, the current government policy is the correct one. |
| Date | 20:38:32, September 14, 2008 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | We cannot agree with article 2 for the reasons given by our colleagues in the WSS!P. We also see no reason for article 3 as it does not change the current state of affairs. We could, however, support article 1 if it were presented separately from the other articles. |
| Date | 23:04:38, September 14, 2008 CET | From | Hobrazian Extraordinary Gentlemen's Club | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | We think the current law system is discriminating! The civil liberties are at stake; the suggested proposals are moralistic and human. 1) The tests and qualifications required to be passed by the would-be parents lead to tensions in society with families with children being able to obtain a higher social status. Just because they are able to pass the test; which makes them elite. We are not obtaining the positive effect, when we create divisions in the society. It is not acceptable, for the government to take away such important and vital aspects of human biology. Who is there to decide what a good parent is? Is that a person capable of providing a sufficient economic well-being? Government can take this role. The «bad parent» argument is just an excuse to hide government's lack of desire to approach this problem more seriously. The parties who are stepping in with the current initiative are clear example of the fact that these things could change. Our government is capable of creating and providing our citizens with positive environment, social securities and all the other support for the would-be parents. Not willing to go too far into debating with the representatives of other parties, but in the past you have rejected proposals with initiatives concerning the free distribution of contraceptives. With the current requirement for parents to qualify; the situations when the pregnancy has occurred and the permission to become a parent is not granted — these situations are exposing mothers to threat of surgical intrusion! Government could invest more into sexual education programs ; programs promoting social activities and strengthening family values and preciousness of family ties. The government is not the one who is able to judge whether the person is a good or a bad parent. The child should be able to tell it, but not the government officials participating in the bureaucratic procedures, taken away from realities of life and not being able to see the human side of the problem. The forming of an individual personality and up-bringing is something that could last through a person's entire life. Can my honorable colleagues at We Say So! Party be sure that the current system is working properly? The would-be parents are.. being observed, checked or controlled? How is it possible to define whether the person is ready to be a parent? That is not government's role to define that. The life is full with events affecting the person, where is the guarantee the person hasn't changed after they passed the test? Thats hypocrisy, amoral and discriminating. I believe that colleagues from other parties will give these proposals enough thought, before letting the initiatives within state to make a step from authoritarian and totalitarian stance towards a state with more liberties for the people. 2) Every person has a right to express his or her points of views; thats the freedom every person gains with a birth in the world. Some states seek ways of taking the rights of their citizens away, because it is possible to suppress, exploit and misuse the person after you have taken away their freedoms. Protesting or demonstrating your disapproval of the things occurring in the county, state or the world is just one of the ways to display your point of view. Taking it to the extreme and hurting other people's freedoms is not the solution, and it should not be allowed, but the current law tries to regulate the everyday life of our citizens, so we need to think it over more attentively. The present situation, allowing to disperse groups of people, again, is the easiest way for the government to get out of the conflict and solve the problem. That is not supposed to work that way when human liberties are discussed. 3) And addressing the third proposal in the bill: The lack of clear governmental position on the topic is causing confusion. Not taking, for instance, the present proposal, but speaking generally — there are issues not covered by the laws and it takes the government to attend them, to make a clear signal to the citizens, to shed some light! To ease the possible judicial processes. Accepting the third proposal will show our citizens that we are trying to defend their civil liberties; that we appreciate them the way they are and that they mean a lot to the government. |
| Date | 23:52:41, September 14, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | Our right honourable colleagues of the HSJP seem to be in some confusion with this bill. They state that the government should not be involved in matters where parenting is involved as it is not any business of government to say who is or isn't a "bad parent" and yet they argue for the government to be involved in setting laws that allow morally questionable activities where the government should have no involvement as such activity is not of concern to any government. When the government is actively concerned with setting moral standards for its population then we are at risk of totalitarian regimes. Moreover, this bill actually allows the onset of anarchy into our national process by not allowing security services to act to protect people and their property should there be a risk to public safety. We support peoples rights to air their views. We support peoples right to protest. We do not support peoples right to cause harm to others, and if we can stop that before it happens then all the better. |
| Date | 06:12:36, September 15, 2008 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Civil Rights |
| Message | We will not support this bill, and support the message outlined by the We Say So! Party. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 178 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 222 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "The liberal state is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building." - Benito Mussolini |