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: Public Safety Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Workers 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: October 3752
Description[?]:
In order to ensure that police are able to maintain public safety and order, they shall be granted the right to disperse crowds that are deemed a public hazard. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may only disperse a crowd if a state of emergency has been declared.
Current: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Proposed: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 16:29:46, October 26, 2014 CET | From | Uniao Socialista | To | Debating the Public Safety Act |
Message | And who is to decide if a group is actually a threat? We think there are nefarious schemes and secret agendas behind the proposal and will of course not vote for it |
Date | 04:38:26, November 02, 2014 CET | From | Partido da Pátria Liberta | To | Debating the Public Safety Act |
Message | Not voting for this bill is the same of saying, "Let a tragedy take place and then we'll act". If the group poses a potential risk to public safety, the police not only should but it must do something! And things like what can be considered a threat or even the punishment to misfeasance by the cops can be later discussed by the National Assembly. |
Date | 09:20:08, November 02, 2014 CET | From | União Democrática do Tukarali | To | Debating the Public Safety Act |
Message | "Voting for this proposal means voting for random abusive of power and the de factoabolition of the people's right to assemble in public.As the Union Socialista already mentioned, who is going to decide whether a group poses a potential risk to public safety? And how exactly is such a risk defined? If this proposal became law, it would be possible for some police commander to declare any group a risk to public safety simply because said commander doesn't like the cause they have assembled for. This propsed legislation is deeply authoritarian and should be rejected soundly by anyone with a concern for our democracy and the rights of our people." Tomé Soares, Minister of Justice |
Date | 11:16:58, November 02, 2014 CET | From | Central Democratic Party | To | Debating the Public Safety Act |
Message | Tome Soares, our wise Minister of Justice just said what we wanted to say. Definitely, this bill hurts the Right of our people to protest, and by so, is disgustingly anti-democratical.. |
Date | 18:02:31, November 02, 2014 CET | From | Partido da Pátria Liberta | To | Debating the Public Safety Act |
Message | Authoritarian implies that a person or an entity can do whatever they want with no responsibility over their deeds. You raised the question "Who is going to decide whether a group poses a potential risk to public safety? And how exactly is such a risk defined?" and the answer is pretty simple: the National Assembly can perfectly vote for an interpretative bill which will define what can be considered a potential risk to public safety as well as punishment for abusive conduct by the police. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 39 | |||
no | Total Seats: 86 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
Random quote: "The true destiny of America is religious, not political: it is spiritual, not physical." - Alvin R. Dyer |