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: Paramilitary Act, April 4317
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Conservative Party
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: December 4317
Description[?]:
| This bill will allow political parties to hire a small paramilitary force in order to defend party grounds. We call for this bill after a terror attack on the NCP HQ claimed the life of four men (Including Defense Minister candidate Wilfrid Ewart) and injured sixteen. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government's position on paramilitaries.
Old value:: Paramilitaries are illegal and the recognized government may intervene freely to stop any possible activity.
Current: Paramilitaries are allowed as part of each political party.
Proposed: Paramilitaries are allowed as part of each political party.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:46:52, December 13, 2017 CET | From | Kalistan Capitalist Party of Freedom | To | Debating the Paramilitary Act, April 4317 |
| Message | The KCPF is firmly in support of this act and will vote yes on this bill. |
| Date | 22:35:24, December 13, 2017 CET | From | Progress Party—The Greens | To | Debating the Paramilitary Act, April 4317 |
| Message | We offer our sincerest condolences at the death of the NCP members and injury of others, but we cannot condone this. Allowing parties to have paramilitaries eats away at the very core of democratic, peaceful competition that is essential in democracies. Whatever ostensible reason you have for proposing this—in this case Party security— this has very real potential for leading to clashes between armed wings of different parties and intimidating voters for opposition parties. Security and defense of partisan organization does and should lie with the police and National intelligence services, or even a private security firm, not a paramilitary. So we vote a resounding no. |
| Date | 03:18:00, December 14, 2017 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Paramilitary Act, April 4317 |
| Message | We understand the concerns of the PP-G, but we do not intend to give paramilitaries full rights. We only wish to allow paramilitaries restricted only to defense purposes which cannot be armed while off of party property. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 212 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 182 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 106 |
| Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password. |
| Random quote: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper |