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: Privacy Act of 3122
Details
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: July 3123
Description[?]:
| For the approval of the Kokkai, the SUNS hereby submits the following proposals, intended to enhance the government's administration of the privacy rights guaranteed by the national law. Out of several ideas generated by our regional committees, these were chosen to move forward to the imperial legislature. May the administration of justice be enhanced by the refocusing of legal authority on substantive crimes. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Curfew policy (curfew time to be determined in the bill description).
Old value:: Local governments may impose curfews, but only if a state of emergency has been declared.
Current: The national government may impose curfews, but only if a state of emergency has been declared.
Proposed: No curfew policies may be established.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning diplomatic immunity.
Old value:: The government grants no diplomatic immunity and foreign diplomats are subject to arrest and prosecution and civil action under all laws of the host nation.
Current: Diplomats are exempt from prosecution for criminal acts but not from civil lawsuits, but may still be expelled because of criminal acts.
Proposed: Diplomats are exempt from prosecution for criminal acts but not from civil lawsuits, but may still be expelled because of criminal acts.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The confidentiality of letters and correspondence.
Old value:: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable, but the justice dept. can violate it in extreme situations.
Current: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable.
Proposed: The confidentiality of letters is inviolable.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards police presence.
Old value:: The police patrol public property at all times.
Current: The police patrol all property at all times.
Proposed: Presence of the police is left to the local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:24:59, May 17, 2011 CET | From |  帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Privacy Act of 3122 |
| Message | We're vehemently opposed to the marriage policy, generally opposed to the parts on diplomatic immunity and curfews and neutral towards the rest. |
| Date | 06:29:11, May 18, 2011 CET | From | Mugenkai | To | Debating the Privacy Act of 3122 |
| Message | Because of the symbolic importance of this legislation, we will remove the marriage policy. A majority of the SUNS lawmakers have approved this decision. OOC: I'm going to assume that the SUNS inaction for the last several years has been as a result of governance-by-committee and democratic overload. It's up to you if there ever were power-sharing talks during the years of divided rule, but when the SUNS was the majority by one vote, they cdertainly wouldn't have been equipped to propose a cabinet that needed hundreds of legislators to consent. No matter what the standing rules of the Kokkai allowed them. Implementation of the Fair Apportionment Act of 2662 was, therefore, never considered. Still posting OOC, but in both senses... The ball is now in your court. I'll bring this to vote tomorrow. |
| Date | 06:33:14, May 18, 2011 CET | From | Mugenkai | To | Debating the Privacy Act of 3122 |
| Message | OOC: Never seriously considered, I want to have said... Oh well. I've got centuries of RP to familiarize myself with. You guys are a hard act to follow, but you know that. :) |
| Date | 11:30:39, May 19, 2011 CET | From | Saiken Renmei | To | Debating the Privacy Act of 3122 |
| Message | OOC: Yeah, I've also been quite busy with exams and all, so we may assume that legislative inactivity is a result of the coup leaders ruling by decree. |
| Date | 01:07:14, May 20, 2011 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Privacy Act of 3122 |
| Message | OOC: We could just say their were temporal anomalies involved. I mean considering how unrealistic this game has become politically (you don't annex countries), demographically (we used to have twice as many people) and technologically (Star Trek holograms are not possible), it would'nt be to off. :P |
| Date | 07:34:20, May 23, 2011 CET | From | Mugenkai | To | Debating the Privacy Act of 3122 |
| Message | OOC: I can actually back that up, considering that in my old nation, they were to have been invaded and the military government of the neighboring nation was roundly ignored. I pretty much would probably be better off there... Nothing against Sekowo, of course, but there'd be less of a learning curve. On the other hand, "Dundorf" is a boring name. What do you say -- should I stick around here? If so I'll just... retcon something. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 335 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 365 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The majority of nations in Particracy are "Culturally Protected" with an established cultural background. Only the "Culturally Open" nations are not bound by the rules surrounding culture. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation. |
| Random quote: "In heaven all the interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche |