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: Women Equality Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Elitist 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 2835
Description[?]:
| The REP believes that the current legislation severely discriminates women serving in the army. We do not see why does women who wish to enrol in the army cannot serve alongside men. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Women in the military.
Old value:: Women can only serve in non-battle positions.
Current: Women serve alongside men.
Proposed: Women serve alongside men.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:58:54, October 17, 2009 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | We commend the REP on their drive on discrimination, but the PPR believe that there are practicalities that supercede equal right in this case. The placing of female combatants on the front-lines would not be equality but would be inequality. |
| Date | 07:02:33, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Restoration Party | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | We will vote as we have before. We cannot support for practical purposes, as the PPR has stated. |
| Date | 10:50:35, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | Well, we have thought about this argument, legitimate by the why. However we found that women who are willing to enter military service have serious commitments to this cause. This also implies that they have training and capabilities which are remarkable and can serve as subject of envy even for men. Thus I do not see why should we make a distinction based on the presupposition that women are weaker than men. |
| Date | 11:37:28, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | The RHP strongly oppose this legislation - we must recognize the natural physical and mental distinctions between men and women, and acknowledge that these biological predispositions have implications for what roles they are best suited to. Simply put, women are not endowed with the same capacity for combat as men - this is a generalization, but one that is evidenced by our different genetic and hormonal make-up. To ignore these natural differences in the name of abstract ideology is folly, and would fundamentally weaken our military. |
| Date | 12:03:25, October 18, 2009 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | The PPR see this bill as indirectly discriminatory. We by no means suggest that this was the intended by the REP and firmly believe that the bill was proposed with all the intentions of liberty. The REP argued that "This also implies that they have training and capabilities which are remarkable and can serve as subject of envy even for men". This implies that only physically comparable women would be allowed to serve in the armed forces. This is a sensible suggestion but how many of the women currently serving in non-combat roles can stand up to this description? The numbers of women serving would then decrease, hence the PPR finding it indirectly discriminatory. |
| Date | 12:16:25, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | Buut we did not propose to put all women into the middle of battle. Certainly secretaries in military office cannot do this and do not want to do this. But those women who apply for a combat job should not be segregated or banned from battle. |
| Date | 20:49:06, October 18, 2009 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | We share the views of the Elitist Party and fully support this bill. |
| Date | 21:10:44, October 18, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | Our position should be clear on this by now, we oppose this bill on the grounds of reduced morale. |
| Date | 21:33:15, October 18, 2009 CET | From | People's Party of Rutania | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | The PPR oppose this bill, but to clarify we do not oppose this bill on the grounds of 'reduced morale'. After all, our fine soldiers are professionals. |
| Date | 21:37:52, October 18, 2009 CET | From | United Democrats | To | Debating the Women Equality Bill |
| Message | There are many arguments on this matter, a poignant one being: Elaine Donnelly, President of Military Readiness think-tank. "As an example, she describes a scenario in which an infantry soldier is wounded on the battlefield and needs to be carried to safety. She says that if the closest soldier is a female support soldier, "no matter how brave or courageous she is, no matter how hard she tries, she would not be able to evacuate that soldier on her back," Donnelly says. "There is no excuse for anybody's son, an infantryman, to lose his life because the co-located soldier nearby was a female soldier, rather than a male soldier, as required by regulation. This is not a matter that can be taken lightly. We're talking about life and death here," she says." |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 102 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 203 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is possible for a player to transfer ownership of a character or a royal house to another player. This should be done in a public way, such as on the Character Transfers thread, so that if a dispute arises in the future, Moderation can be pointed towards evidence of the transfer. |
| Random quote: "Zardugal. . . very successfully almost managed to implement democracy on a global scale, a millennia ago. With a seat in the Security Council we can do it again." - Phoebe Ĥoniato, former Zardic politician |