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: Police reforms act
Details
Submitted by[?]: national conservatives
Status[?]: passed
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 3199
Description[?]:
| An act to reform the power entrusted in our police force |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: The government does not operate or fund any police.
Current: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Proposed: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards police presence.
Old value:: The police do not actively patrol public property.
Current: The police do not actively patrol public property.
Proposed: The police patrol public property at all times.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:08:40, October 01, 2011 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | UNfortunately we cannot support the expansion of police power in Kalistan. History demonstrates that the police are often used for political purposes against opposition parties. It has been our Party's personal experience: Additionally, an increase in police power equals a decrease in individual liberty, and our goal as a party is to expand individual liberty. If you would like to offer Article 2, on a national police force, as its own article, at least we could help pass that as a form of compromise. |
| Date | 23:48:55, October 01, 2011 CET | From | national conservatives | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | I will take away article one as a compromise, but believe that the second and third articles are integral to making Kalistan a safer place. |
| Date | 06:45:52, October 02, 2011 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | We cannot vote for it. Article 1 decreases freedom of Kalistani's by reserving the right to limit the freedoms of movement and assembly in times of crisis, but determination of the "crisis" is at the discretion of the Government, and there will likely be a time when the government is in the hands of people not so committed to the freedom of the People of Kalistan as our current government is. We speak from experience. Article 3 remains an issue because we fail to understand the need for constant police surveillance of public property, which is, after all, the possession of each and every Kalistani, and therefore, the natural place to congregate and demonstrate. We would be in favor of a selective surveillance of public property, like say, for just cause, if conditions warrant it, but constant police presence puts a cold blanket on public civil society. Again, the only of these three articles we can support, by the current wording, is Article 2. If you put that into a separate bill, on its own, we can support it, but if you put 2 and 3 in a new bill, perhaps you can convince the Freedom Party to support an increase in police presence. But we cannot vote for that. We remain committed to working together to find improvements for Kalistan: increasing police presence and the right to arbitrarily call curfews doesn't seem to us to be the wisest way to accomplish that goal. |
| Date | 06:47:32, October 02, 2011 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | Basically, given the history of the Socialist Party in Kalistan, especially when the SP is in the minority, we have no reason to ever trust the police to do the right thing. You will forgive us for not making that clear at first, but under no circumstances will the SP ever vote to give them more power, unless we ourselves dictate their mandate, and as you will correctly note, we do not. |
| Date | 15:13:02, October 02, 2011 CET | From | national conservatives | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | Ok, I will talk to the freedom party. I can see this will be one bill we shall not agree on. |
| Date | 20:06:02, October 02, 2011 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | Why not propose Article 2 as its own bill and then try to pass the other parts with the Freedom Party, if they are on board. At least then some improvement will be made. |
| Date | 23:40:41, October 02, 2011 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | I don't like expanding government power so I cant support article 1 but I would vote for article 2 |
| Date | 20:11:13, October 03, 2011 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | We can only support Article 1 of this bill. And then with qualifications. |
| Date | 20:52:46, October 03, 2011 CET | From | national conservatives | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | Well if you can both support each article, why not both vote for this bill and we can see how the legislation works when put into practice. |
| Date | 03:22:49, October 04, 2011 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police reforms act |
| Message | Because the Article that we oppose is viewed as dangerous. We would rather maintain the status quo than see police patrol public property at all times. We'd rather have no police at all. We only kind of support the first Article, but are really opposed to the second one. Consequently, we prefer to protect the status quo, which is what we prefer, in this case, over either option. We simply cannot support this bill as is. We would like to point out that we are not being obstinate here. We haven't advanced legislation that we know will be a non-starter with the National Conservatives, and we have agreed to roll backs from the hard socialist position to one that we can live with and your Party can live with. In short, we hope you do not see this inability to support the rise of a police state as unwillingness to compromise. This just doesn't happen to be an area we can compromise on. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 267 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 483 |
| Random fact: Once approved, players should copy Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the passed Cultural Protocol bill and the Moderation approval. |
| Random quote: "The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home." - Confucius |