Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: December 5460
Next month in: 03:30:53
Server time: 12:29:06, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): Dioskouros | h48191 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Civil Freedom Bill

Details

Submitted by[?]: People's National Unity Movement (RDL)

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: November 2183

Description[?]:

Personally I don't think we should give the police the power to disperse a group purely on the 'belief' that they might present a threat.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date11:52:48, February 09, 2006 CET
FromDevout Ecologists Party
ToDebating the Civil Freedom Bill
MessageAnd what if they -are- a risk? What if that risk comes true and public safety is damaged? People hurt, objects damaged. Are we willing to risk that? Well I will tell you, I am not willing to risk that. So I oppose this article.

Date14:34:35, February 09, 2006 CET
FromPeople's National Unity Movement (RDL)
ToDebating the Civil Freedom Bill
MessageIn the event of a genuine threat coming to fruition the police are free to act. However the current law gives any police officer carte blanche to disperse any crowd so long as he states his belief that public safety is under threat -whether it is or not.

Date15:19:08, February 09, 2006 CET
From Mouvement des Conservateurs
ToDebating the Civil Freedom Bill
MessageAlso the police authorities have no full immunity, when they would disperse a group without any rightful reason they risk their credibility as law enforcer. So I believe we need to keep the regulation in its current form.

Date18:36:53, February 09, 2006 CET
FromPeople's National Unity Movement (RDL)
ToDebating the Civil Freedom Bill
MessageBut the law defines 'belief' as a proper reason - no evidence is needed

Date20:02:59, February 09, 2006 CET
FromDevout Ecologists Party
ToDebating the Civil Freedom Bill
MessageIf that belief was totally ungrounded however, then the police officer must take responsibility with consequences for himself.
What you are opposing is dispersing groups without reasons, that is another option of the article as you may have noticed. But that is not the current value, nor the proposed.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 201

no
     

Total Seats: 357

abstain
 

Total Seats: 42


Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner.

Random quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun... our principle is to have the Party control the gun and never allow the gun to control the Party." - Mao Zedong

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 56