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: Freedom to protest
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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: January 2046
Description[?]:
| The government shall respect the freedom to assemble, and take no actions to infringe on peaceful protests for any cause. |
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 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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:18:19, April 27, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | It is the responsibility of the police to protect the public. Removing their ability to disperse potential threats completely leads one to wonder just what the CCF expects them to do if a protest or assembly becomes violent, or if picketers begin to riot. As long as a group is peaceful, there is no reason for the group to fear police intervention. |
| Date | 22:58:17, April 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | There has been a history of police intervention into peaceful protests that stretches far back in history. We are of the opinion that the police may ONLY apprehend, disperse and calm a crowd when they end being peaceful. Freedom of Assembly is an integral part of the Freedom of Expression, |
| Date | 23:25:08, April 27, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | Then the LSU shares the opinion of the Council. This bill is ridiculous in that it claims to only remove the ability of the police to disperse peaceful groups, while its proposal removes the ability to disperse ALL groups by removing such restrictions as "remaining peaceful" on the right to assemble. The bill's description is what we already have - its proposed state is something far worse. |
| Date | 00:19:55, April 28, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | No, what we already have is a bill that states the police may disperse a crowd when they deem it is a threat to peace. The LSU would never trust a body as oppressive as the police to determine when peace is threatened. Naturally, if the protestors are violently breaking the law, they will be dispersed The right to peaceful assembly does not trump the fact that murder is a crime. |
| Date | 02:49:56, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | "There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups." Note the "no restrictions" part. This means that citizens may assemble even in violent groups. On the other hand, if police disperse a group that has not become violent under the current law, public outcry will be enough to prevent such a thing from happening again. |
| Date | 09:03:18, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | The MLP cannot support this. We agree wit the Amystian Council that it poses a possible safety threat, and hence cannot support this. |
| Date | 16:59:57, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | There does not appear to be sufficient support to pass this bill. Unless thjere is a strong feeling that it should be put to a vote, the CCF will withdraw the bill. |
| Date | 22:42:27, April 28, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | "Note the "no restrictions" part. This means that citizens may assemble even in violent groups. On the other hand, if police disperse a group that has not become violent under the current law, public outcry will be enough to prevent such a thing from happening again." The law may not have bceen worded correctly (CCF worded it well though), but it it understood that 'no restrictions' does not mean that they are immune from arrest for other crimes. |
| Date | 23:11:20, April 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | That's certainlt the intent: "peaceful protest" is intended to exclude acts of violence. Sadly the proposals are somtimes too bluntly worded. |
| Date | 05:49:29, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | That's exactly it. What the CCF has stated is already allowed under the wording of the current legislation. No need to change it to something that will not support the stated aim. |
| Date | 18:01:50, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | The current wording allows the police to break up protests whenever they decide they want to, since the definiton of public safety is up to them. It's just as problematic as the proposed wording. If there was a proposal wording that stated what the bill states, then that would be the one recommended. At any rate, the CCF intends to withdraw the bill once debate has closed, given the opinion of the MLP and the Amystian Council. |
| Date | 00:49:39, April 30, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | (Meh, some Libertarian Capitalist you are) |
| Date | 19:42:35, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | (changed my mind on bringing this to a vote, since we need more things to vote on.) |
| Date | 21:12:38, May 02, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | We're wholly supportive of this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 19 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 26 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 20 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken |