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: "l'illégalité de Nom" Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
Status[?]: defeated
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: April 2735
Description[?]:
| We, the Conservative and Morality Party, do hereby propose that this Sovereign Senate legislate on the inappropriateness of the naming of Political Parties in this respectable Body and Arm of Government. ~ Article 1 ~ a. We, the Senate of the Federal Republic, do find that due to the corrupt and aggresive nature of such as regime, that the word "Nuncirist" should not and shall not be tolerated as an acceptable phrase used in the title of Political Parties in Solentia. b. Parties that are found to be using such a phrase shall be declared illegal and shall not be recognised by the State as a legal political entity. Leaders of such a group may be prosecuted. ~ Article 2 ~ a. We, the Senate of the Federal Republic, do find that due to the outlandish and expanionist nature of such a regime, that the word "Communist" should not and shall not be tolerated as an acceptable phrase used in the title of Political Parties in Solentia. b. Parties that are found to be using such a phrase shall be declared illegal and shall not be recognised by the State as a legal political entity. Leaders of such a group may be prosecuted. ~ Article 3 ~ a. We, the Senate of the Federal Republic, do find that due to the arrogant and untrue nature of the phrase, that the word "Official" should not and shall not be tolerated as an acceptable phrase used in the title of Political Parties in Solentia. b. Parties that are found to be using such a phrase shall be declared illegal and shall not be recognised by the State as a legal political entity. Leaders of such a group may be prosecuted. ~ Article 5 ~ a. We, the Senate of the Federal Republic, do find that due to the evil and cruel nature of such a regime, that the word "Fascist" should not and shall not be tolerated as an acceptable phrase used in the title of Political Parties in Solentia. b. Parties that are found to be using such a phrase shall be declared illegal and shall not be recognised by the State as a legal political entity. Leaders of such a group may be prosecuted. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:21:55, March 31, 2009 CET | From |  People's Liberation Army of Solentia | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | If the following article is added, we will support: "~ Article 6 ~ a. We, the Senate of the Federal Republic, do find that due to the hypocritical and selfish nature of such a regime, that the word "Conservative" should not and shall not be tolerated as an acceptable phrase used in the title of Political Parties in Solentia. b. Parties that are found to be using such a phrase shall be declared illegal and shall not be recognised by the State as a legal political entity. Leaders of such a group may be prosecuted." |
| Date | 12:30:46, March 31, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | "It is not the place of the "People's" "Liberation" "Army" to dictate terms under a Conservative Act." Zahara Nasri, CMP Shadow Senate Warden. |
| Date | 22:23:44, March 31, 2009 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | This resolution is opposed on the grounds that it weakens freedom of political diversity and speech. FIP Majority Leader Jack Metzenbaum |
| Date | 22:29:01, March 31, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | "We had been aware for a long time that the F.I.P have changed, we had hoped that it would be for the better. But an F.I.P that allows Nuncirism? We are somewhat disgusted." |
| Date | 23:26:16, March 31, 2009 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | Our party is 'disgusted' that what we thought was a democratic party in the 'Conservative and Morlity Party' would never bring to the senate such a dictatorial act. Whilst we do not agree with facism for instance, it is up to our citizens to decide on which parties and which ideologies are legal. Why should the word'official' - be banned? Also, what you have presented us with is a bill going through the senate and you have told us what would be included within this bill. What you have failed to do, is present an argument for each of the articles. Why is this? Why would you expect this bill to suceed without any logical arguments or reasoning? |
| Date | 23:40:58, March 31, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | "Firstly, it is not within CMP usual custom to present arguments for our bills inside the Bills themselves. Such things must be left to debate and kept out of legislation, so ensure a egalitarian and neutral legislature. I should hope that when a Judicial Committee is analysing a piece of legislation, that they are looking at proper and appropriate terminology and not as Party Politics and propaganda. Secondly, I reject entirely that this move is an undemocratic one or a "dictatorial act". This is a free and Sovereign Senate and as such, no bill passed is "dictatorial", it is approved by a majority of the elected representatives inside this House. This Bill seeks to eliminate dangerous and radical regimes such as Nuncirism (which I believe, the Gentleman may be a little young to remember), Communism and Fascism which seek to replace the democratic and free leadership and authority invested in the Supreme President with TRUELY dictatorial and authoritarian executives. Penultimately, it is the belief of this party that the word "official" denotes something approved and indeed, on behalf of the State. I do not believe at this time, that the "Official" Conservative Party has the formal authority to speak on behalf of the State in such a manner. "Official" denotes authority passed from the true and legitimate authority of the realm, which should be reserved for State Ministries, Officials and policies and not for self-declared political entities such as a political party or a pressure group. Indeed, we would question if even a Quango would be legally permitted to use such a piece of lexis in it's title or description. And so, to answer your question, that is why it should be banned, as a means of preventing the populace from being decieved into believing that such parties, groups and entities somehow work on behalf of the State, when in fact, they do not. It is a matter of Transparency and Accountability, something that, even if the gentleman doesn't, the CMP takes exceptionally seriously." Mika Rosberg, CMP Leader. |
| Date | 00:07:31, April 01, 2009 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | Never have I heard so much spoken and so much rubbish come out, apart from the CMP electoral manifesto. The point is this bill has no logical arguments apart from ‘party politics’ as the CMP clearly wants to ban words and ideologies with which they disagree with. That isn’t democratic. As much as we may disagree with extremist ideologies, banning such things and not allowing parties to have certain words in their titles is surely just as bad as the extremists themselves. Also just because a word is banned from a party title, the ideology which comes with that isn’t and therefore a political party may still form under a new name which follows an extremist regime. Could the CMP clarify are they attempting to ban the wording of political parties or ideologies? If it is ideologies they are wasting the senates time for the reason I have just explained and if it is the wording, the ideologies would still exist but we would have banned 4 words from political party use. I am at a loss with what this bill is trying to achieve other than please the petty members of the CMP and ban words the CMP doesn’t like. I must also point out to the CMP that they said they didn’t want to present an argument to the senate because it would be playing ‘party politics.’ The very point in having a senate is so each party presents their ideas to the senate and we all debate them. If we didn’t present an argument for our ideas, we would have no reason to be debating at all. I am glad the CMP noticed their early error and corrected it by presenting an argument; it is noble and admirable when politicians admit their flaws. It will come as no surprise to the senate that our party opposes this bill and we won’t be joining in with such lengthy debates in the future unless the bill is of a serious nature and not parties banning things they don’t agree with and with no logical argument at all. I didn’t wish to take things to such an aggressive level and I have learnt for myself of the infamous ‘CMP reputation’ I have been warned about. |
| Date | 00:40:01, April 01, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | "And there we have it gentlemen, the admission that the "official" Conservative Party would see Fascists, Communists and Nuncirists wander these halls openly and democratically open for election. Dictatorial regimes being supported and given the opportunity to kill Solentian Democracy. The Gentleman's true colours are shining through. To answer the Gentleman's question Mr. Speaker, the CMP is dedicated to combatting dictatorial regimes in both name and in body and we feel that the battle against such evils cannot be done with only one of those, it must be an amalgamation of the two methods, speaking from Expirience. I find it quite laughable that the Gentleman would accuse the CMP of being petty, when it is we that are combatting the great evils, and it is the Gentleman's party that seeks to hide it's inappropriate use of the the word "official". If the Gentleman wants to play little Sir noble and hide behind democratic rhetoic, let it be that he first ensures that his points are plain and truthful and not shrouded in false reasoning. The aims of his party currently are totally and purely the defence of his own parties mistakes. If the Gentleman had been listening, he should also have noticed that (as stated), the CMP does NOT provide argument in the actual legislation themselves, so that the legislation may stay clean and free from party politics, however provides reasoning and justification when asked to provide it. That has been the way for the last 230 years and it shall continue to be so. Of course, if the Gentleman truely does see the nobility of verity and truth, then I shall await his admittance that his grounds for opposing this bill are founded more on selfish principle than on moral or ethic. Finally, I can assure the Gentleman that the reasoning behind this bill shall be made clear once his party gains two centuries worth of expirience and a "reputation" of their own." Mika Rosberg, CMP Leader ooc: aggressive? lol I hardly class THAT as aggressive. |
| Date | 17:22:26, April 01, 2009 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | "the CMP does NOT provide argument in the actual legislation themselves, so that the legislation may stay clean and free from party politics," If the CMP doesn't provide an argument in the actual legislative debate, where does he propose we do debate legislation as without providing an argument for an issue, there is nothing too debate? Furthermore, if the CMP believes that with age comes good experience than they can look to themselves to counter balance such an argument. The repuation I was referring to was far from a good one and that isn't my claim, several of the other parties. The CMP still haven't answered my question. Is this bill about banning titles and words or is it about banning ideologies, as either way this bill will achieve neither from the reasons I and others have stated, so therefore isn't the bill pointless? Mary Thatcher, Shadow Senate Warden |
| Date | 18:09:14, April 01, 2009 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the "l'illégalité de Nom" Act |
| Message | "Clearly the Honourable Lady is simply not listening. As explained, the CMP debates issues if and when questions and qualms are posed. We do not include arguments in the legislation however are happy to debate them. That is also, not really an issue for it is the way that we have always done things and shall continue to do so. The OCP is not really in a position to preach to the CMP about age and expirience and whether the CMP is expirienced, for such would be highly hypocritical. The Lady is clearly highly inexpirienced in politics in general, for if she weren't, she would be well aware that members of opposite sides of the House are not going to be complimentary about the other. Such is the way of things. Lastly, the CMP has been exceptionally clear on our answering of our question, again, perhaps the Lady might learn to listen? The CMP is dedicated to combatting these dark ideologies in both name and substance and has always worked at combatting both. This Bill serves as a reasonable limitation on frankly unacceptable ideologies being supported inside this House. Unless the Lady is suggesting that she supports Fascism, Communism and Nuncirism?" Mika Rosberg, CMP Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 106 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 319 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Zardugal is a nation based on the old Byzantine Empire, with a modern twist and the Esperanto language. Zardugal is located on the continent of Majatra. |
| Random quote: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud |