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
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Current: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 11:52:48, February 09, 2006 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Civil Freedom Bill |
Message | And 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. |
Date | 14:34:35, February 09, 2006 CET | From | People's National Unity Movement (RDL) | To | Debating the Civil Freedom Bill |
Message | In 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. |
Date | 15:19:08, February 09, 2006 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Civil Freedom Bill |
Message | Also 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. |
Date | 18:36:53, February 09, 2006 CET | From | People's National Unity Movement (RDL) | To | Debating the Civil Freedom Bill |
Message | But the law defines 'belief' as a proper reason - no evidence is needed |
Date | 20:02:59, February 09, 2006 CET | From | Devout Ecologists Party | To | Debating the Civil Freedom Bill |
Message | If 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 |