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: Flag Burning Amendment
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democratic 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: March 2816
Description[?]:
| The Liberal Democratic Party is a strong believer in free speech. There is no reason for the government to regulate flag burning. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National policy regarding the desecration of the national flag.
Old value:: The national flag may not be desecrated or dishonoured.
Current: There are no regulations regarding the desecration or use of the national flag.
Proposed: There are no regulations regarding the desecration or use of the national flag.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:05:39, September 09, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | We at the NDPR believe that there must be regulations on the desecration of our national flag. Passing this bill would open up all types of unwanted, often violent and dangerous, protest. |
| Date | 01:11:00, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | Do you think people are not protesting because they can't legally burn the flag? Upon passing this bill will there be an epidemic of flag burning? |
| Date | 01:42:32, September 09, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | Will allowing people to burn the great flag of Rutania not incite (or even encourage) racial hatred among the people? |
| Date | 02:45:33, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | The desecration of our national symbol is not an act of 'speech', but merely an act - it can hardly be protected by the same sentiment as free speech. It is not the simple act of burning a piece of fabric that the RHP object to - it is what this act represents, which is a deep-seated and violent animosity towards this nation, its culture and its people. We oppose this legislation, and we suggest that the LDP seriously reconsider their priorities. |
| Date | 12:08:10, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | It is an act of free will, and I believe the citizens of Rutania should have the freedom to express their opinion, even if negative, about the nation. The Liberal Democractic Party are proud of their strong beliefs in liberty, freedom of expression and an open society. |
| Date | 18:50:12, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | We believe the Senate should have a stance about one of our national symbols. We agree with the LDP that, the government should accept critical behaviour toward the nation or the state as they are. We would support a slight liberalisation of the actual policy, but such an "extreme" (pardon us, for the expression) step is not our priority. |
| Date | 21:03:20, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | We do not believe that amending this law is an extreme step. If people are unhappy they will protest. I don't think there should be a law about burning the flag. We at the LDP believe it to be unnecessary legislation. We ask you again to question whether this law is actually needed. |
| Date | 01:12:24, September 10, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | The onace is on the LDP to explain the need for this change in legislation - if individuals want to express negative attitudes towards Rutania, it's people, or its government, they are free to do so, but they need not desecrate our national symbol to do so. Anyone who shows such blatant disgust for our nation as to burn its national symbol should - frankly - not be a citizen of it at all. |
| Date | 11:38:01, September 10, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Workers Party | To | Debating the Flag Burning Amendment |
| Message | The RWP supports this bill as part of the wider debate on freedom of speech. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 305 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "It is said, 'Pontesi is Jelbic in nature'. But I tell you, they are really a lost tribe of Selucians, forced to become barbarians by their savage Jelbic conquerors." - Alamar Xarfaxis, former Pontesian politician |