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: Ban on problematic clothing.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kalistan National Front
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 4335
Description[?]:
| This bill will ban clothing that could be used in a robbery or a terrorist attack. This bill will nit infringe upon clothing worn in private. Article one: Clothing that covers facial features and could prevent one from seeing the identity of a person such as a burqa or balaclava will be banned. This doesn’t include headscarfs that show facial features like a hijab. This does not include motorcycle helmets. Article two: Upon entering an establishment a person is required to remove a helmet. Shops will be required to clearly state that wearing a motorcycle helmet is not permitted insode. Article three: Sales of such items will not be restricted and the only exemption to article two will be establishments that primarily serve clothing or fashion. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:56:08, January 15, 2018 CET | From | Kalistani Union of Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Ban on problematic clothing. |
| Message | This bill just represents discrimination against Ahmadi's. We won't support. People should be allowed to wear whatever they want, whenever they want. |
| Date | 23:12:40, January 15, 2018 CET | From | Kalistan National Front | To | Debating the Ban on problematic clothing. |
| Message | How? We will allow Ahmedi’s to wear one type of religious clothing already but there are problems associated with full body dress. |
| Date | 00:54:29, January 16, 2018 CET | From | Kalistani Union of Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Ban on problematic clothing. |
| Message | What problems exactly? This just seems like thinly veiled anti-Ahmadi hate laws. Nobody is hurt by not knowing what somebody looks like if it's for religious reasons. It could be argued that wearing sunglasses or a floppy hat that shades the face or a large helmet also covers the face, but nobody is arguing for banning those. In fact, you explicitly carve out exceptions for things like helmets in the bill. God, isn't the right supposed to be all about freedom and whatnot? |
| Date | 18:23:57, January 16, 2018 CET | From | Kalistan National Front | To | Debating the Ban on problematic clothing. |
| Message | We are not discriminating for religious reasons, we are continuing to allow people to wear what they want within reason. But no one can see what’s under full body dress or who’s robbing a bank or stealing an old woman’s handbag. This is why we are suggesting a ban on balaclavas to. Because they can be equally as dangerous. Sure, we could ban all sorts of things however we won’t because there is a difference between having a part of your face covered be it under a sun hat or glasses. And having your entire face covered, by a helmet or balaclava. The KNF doesn’t support discrimination, we have spent the best part of a decade or so fighting the NUP this bill is just common sense and has nothing to do with discrimination. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 416 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 264 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." - Charles de Gaulle |