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: Right to Assemble Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Liberal 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: January 4238
Description[?]:
| Our citizens must feel free to exercise to right to assemble in public without any dispersal attempts. |
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: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
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 | 21:02:37, July 05, 2017 CET | From |  Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Right to Assemble Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, While we affirm our citizens' right to peaceably assemble and protest the government for a redress of grievances. Why should this right be extended to rioting, civil disorder or the destruction of property? The current law doesn't prohibit anyone who is following the law from assembling. So I ask of the SLP to please tell me and my party why the current law is insufficient. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 21:13:53, July 05, 2017 CET | From | Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Right to Assemble Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker The current law specifically says "The police may only disperse a crowd", is not specified what kind of crowd so even peaceful protests may be disperse. Senator McLaughlin, the right to protest is an integral part of democratic process, even if we don't like it. Ann Richardson (SL-LA) Social Liberal Senate leader Senator for Constantine |
| Date | 21:24:58, July 05, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Right to Assemble Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate we affirm the right to peaceably assemble for any reason even protests. On this I think we agree however, to quote the law "In cases of treason, criminal activity or in cases of eminent danger the police have the right to disperse a crowd." There actually is a well defined type of crowd that can be dispersed. Those types are as follows: treasonous crowds, criminal crowds and crowds that are damaging life and property. Is that not well enough defined? Is there something wrong with the law as it is currently stated? Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 261 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 339 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "Blah blah blah- I'm more of a Leftist than all you puppets... You support cops beating people down and kicking out all the foreigners..." - Omar al-Khali, former Kalistani politician |