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: Police Powers Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beiteynu Tax 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: November 4386
Description[?]:
| This legislation is backed by President Magdiel Matz, and will afford the police extra powers in key areas, in order to keep the peace and combat crime. |
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: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Internet regulations.
Old value:: The government has no position on who may use or what is published on the internet.
Current: The government allows anyone to use the internet but the police can run investigations concerning illegal activities conducted by using internet (child abuse, illegal filesharing, ...)
Proposed: The government allows anyone to use the internet but the police can run investigations concerning illegal activities conducted by using internet (child abuse, illegal filesharing, ...)
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding regulation of media content.
Old value:: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Current: There are laws against the publication of false information; everything else may be published freely.
Proposed: There are laws against the publication of false information and hate speech.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:39:24, April 30, 2018 CET | From | Kadima Beiteynu | To | Debating the Police Powers Act |
| Message | You want to illegalize "Hate-speech." "Hate speech" is a derangedly arbitrary term. The government decides what hate speech is. Why should people be thrown in jail for saying something the government doesn't like? That's precisely what this bill will do. This bill will simply empower the government to lock-up people who commit thought crimes, starting with "hate-speech." Does that policy sound familiar? Are we going to open up gulags too? |
| Date | 21:54:01, April 30, 2018 CET | From | Democratic People's Party of Beiteynu | To | Debating the Police Powers Act |
| Message | It is not what the government dislikes. It is what the population dislikes. You shouldn't be allowed to preach genocide against a certain race, for example. We, out of all people, should know it best. |
| Date | 22:46:05, April 30, 2018 CET | From | Beiteynu Tax Party | To | Debating the Police Powers Act |
| Message | The slippery slope argument that Kadima Beiteynu has attempted to present simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Many other countries prosecute on the grounds of hate speech, it is an internationally accepted criminal offence. As a nation of Yeudis, we might consider criminalising hate speech as a matter of urgency, considering our history and the discrimination our people have been subject to in years past. |
| Date | 23:27:52, April 30, 2018 CET | From | Reformist Party | To | Debating the Police Powers Act |
| Message | This bill is an assault to freedom of speech online, although the first proposal to ban things such as child pornography is sensible, we simply cannot condone banning "hate speech" online. |
| Date | 22:39:03, May 01, 2018 CET | From | Kadima Beiteynu | To | Debating the Police Powers Act |
| Message | The slippery slope article does hold up to scrutiny. You actually didn't even scrutinize the argument; you just stated that many other countries and international bodies accept your proposed policy. I acknowledge that, and I think that the aforementioned countries and international bodies are wrong and that this policy is unjust no matter who likes it. This statement: "It is not what the government dislikes. It is what the population dislikes" is untrue, the government will set the parameters of the law. Why would it being "what the people dislike" make it okay anyway? that just makes it so that ideological minorities with unpopular views are persecuted. Also, using our people's history of oppression as an argument for taking away freedom, is rather ironic and doesn't serve as an argument by itself. It's none of our business as a government what people think or say, as long as they don't harm the persons or property of others. Freedom of expression is the most basic and fundamental freedom there is. It's also always the first to go. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 80 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 21 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 19 |
| Random fact: Use a valid e-mail address for your Particracy account. If the e-mail address you entered does not exist, your account may be suspected of multi-accounting and inactivated. |
| Random quote: "Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." Charles De Gaulle (1890 - 1970) |