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: Proposal to change the law on National Service
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic socialist Party of Hutori
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: February 4509
Description[?]:
| If you have just come out of school and want to pursue your dream but there is a war going on and you are anti-militaristic and do not want to serve in the military then you should NOT have to. If you do not want to kill for your country then you should NOT have to. If you do not want to gun down people with hopes and dreams of their own right in front of your eyes then you should NOT have to. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve either a term in the military or a lesser paid term of civilian national service, at their option.
Proposed: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:54:07, December 31, 2018 CET | From | Democratic socialist Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Please, can the Liberal Party of Hutori say why they have voted no? |
| Date | 00:33:52, January 01, 2019 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Under the current law, anyone who conscientiously object his or her military service will be exempted from it which mean that no one in Hutori could be force to join the military even in time of war. Even if we do agree with the reasoning of te Democratic socialist Party that no one should be force to kill another human being, we will have to vote agains't this bill simply because it is not coherente with reality and will weakend our capacity to act efficiently in time of war. -Dan Connovar MP for the National Progress Party |
| Date | 00:34:56, January 01, 2019 CET | From | National Progress Party | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | *weaken |
| Date | 11:52:51, January 01, 2019 CET | From | Democratic socialist Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Under the current law, the National progress party is right, anyone who conscientiously (remember guys, "conscientiously" is very specific and is not representative of everyone who does not feel comfortable killing a human being) objects(ah, object, another problem, "object" is even more specific, it only refers to those small amounts of people who CONSCIENTIOUSLY AND OPENLY object) can go home,but do you think everyone who doesn't like murdering will "conscientiously object"? Let me put it in more simple terms, do you seriously think everyone is going to stand up to the established status quo and say NO, betraying the country in some peoples eyes. You cant expect that from people who just don't want to murder. The reasoning that "We will have to vote against this bill simply because it is not coherent with reality" is absurd. What's more realistic 1: Don't expect people to stand up to a country, a status quo and a way of LIFE. 2: Or Do expect people to do all those things simply because they don't want to murder. I hope you found the choice easy. Then you have the second reasoning of why this bill is bad because it will "Weaken our capacity to act efficiently in times of war". We are not a militaristic country, why do we need to have so many people murdering for our country. If people want to volunteer then they can, of course. We do NOT need to drag people to bloodshed with the excuse that they can go back if they "conscientiously object". We do NOT need to drag 16-year-olds to battlefields so they can murder other 16-year-olds in a bloody cold battlefield, where is the MORALITY in that! HUTORI IS BETTER THAN THIS! |
| Date | 12:16:40, January 01, 2019 CET | From | Democratic socialist Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Fourteen countries have passed this bill, fourteen countries don't care that this bill might possibly "weaken our capacity to act efficiently in times of war", they just don't care, because they see the gaping lack of morality and YOU guys are the ones who are letting it happen, not just letting it happen, actively pushing for it to happen. |
| Date | 04:00:26, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The DSPH has an incredible lack of understanding of the current law. Under the Selective Service Act only in times of war can conscription occur, even then a draft may only be called with the approval of parliament when interests vital to the continuation of the state and the security of the people are in immediate danger. On top of all of that sixteen-year-olds would not be included in the draft as per article 5. We ask of the DSPH to please get their facts straight before attacking another party of Parliament on the grounds of immorality. Aiden Vallen Federalist Parliamentary Leader |
| Date | 11:03:21, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Democratic socialist Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr Speaker, The FPH is the one who has a lack of understanding this country does not need. They first said "under the selective service act only in times of war can conscription occur" I never said otherwise. Then they said, "a draft may only be called with the approval of parliament."This makes no difference at all to this debate. They then said "on top of all that sixteen-year-olds would not be included in the draft as per article 5" Utter nonsense, the age at which students can stop school is 16, the age at which this government considers someone an adult is 16, and the wording goes "ALL ADULTS upon COMPLETION OF SCHOOLING can be required etc." Our facts are right and attacking a party on the basis of morality is sometimes required, especially in this instance. |
| Date | 13:48:19, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Hutori Party | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr Speaker, When the Selective Service Act was written, it was clearly stated in the bill description that 16 year olds would be exempt from the draft. The Democratic Socialist Party is proving time and again that they have no regard for the security of our nation and the safety of our people with bills like this. As for his arguement that parliament having to aprove of a draft not making a difference to this debate, I disagree. The Honourable Parliamentary Leader of the Federalist Party was clearly trying to explain how under current Hutorian law the draft is a last ditch effort and cannot just easily be called for by the government of the day. Zachary Houston MP for Glentingham East Leader of the Conservative Party |
| Date | 13:51:20, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Hutori Party | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | OOC: A lot of laws that the game offers are very vague so we write in the bill description more specific details of the law. So the federalists are correct when saying that 16 year olds are exempt from the draft. |
| Date | 15:47:47, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Democratic socialist Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I concede that I was wrong about the fact that sixteen-year-olds are exempt from the draft, I apologize. But that does not mean that because of the fact that it is not easy to call a draft, that it does not mean it cannot be called, I do not care if it is easy to call a draft a draft or not, it should be impossible. I am saying now that the argument that it is not easy to call a draft does not matter in the scheme of things. It should be impossible o force a human to kill another human no matter the excuse. |
| Date | 17:35:32, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I believe the DSPH grossly misunderstands the law and our position. Firstly, no one is being forced to kill at all, as the Conscientious Objector clause of the Selective Service Act allows anyone to pursue deferment on moral grounds. Secondly, even if Article Seven did not exist the belief that just because you're in the military you will see combat is an incredibly uninformed one. Combat positions only make up approximately twenty percent of military occupations. The vast majority of rates are support roles. Therefore the likelihood that A) A person's deferment will be denied and B) That a person would end up in a combat position is a possibility so remote that it doesn't even deserve mentioning. It is an utterly ridiculous assertion to say that the current law transgresses against anyone's moral convictions and it is thoroughly disingenuous to claim that there is no circumstance in which an equitably implemented draft can be the morally correct choice. Aiden Vallen Federalist Parliamentary Leader |
| Date | 18:17:26, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Democratic socialist Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr Speaker, This misconception that our party misunderstands the law is utterly ridiculous. Firstly, people ARE being forced to kill but may not speak up about it for various reasons which we have stated time and time again. The established status quo is something that not many people can stand up to, even if they are being asked to murder. We have stated this in much more detail before. I am not assuming that everyone in the military is in a combat position, but that argument has no place in this debate. WE ARE NOT UNINFORMED, and the assumption that someone A: might either not have the courage to conscientiously object or have that objection denied and B: that they would be placed in a combat decision is in no thinkable way a "possibility so remote that it doesn't even deserve mentioning" IS SHOCKING, TO SAY THE LEAST. I am appaled at that statement for so many reasons, the fact that the FPH thinks it is a remote possibility is wrong. Even if it wasn't wrong, WHICH IT IS, the statement would mean that the FPH somehow doesn't care for the fact that people are in that position. We are so far apart in our views that I feel very strongly that we should now close the debate since the bill, shamefully, has failed. |
| Date | 20:39:53, January 02, 2019 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Proposal to change the law on National Service |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The "misconception" is not a misconception at all but a demonstrable fact. We are not attributing anything to the DSHP that they have not directly said or would be a logical conclusion of things that they have stated. Next the established status quo is that of educational and moral deferment, so to assert that some people may kowtow to some fabricated societal pressure is utterly unfounded. Even if they were for one reason or another they decide to not pursue a moral deferment that would be the choice of the individual to do so, in no way is it the government's fault that a person does not take a choice that is available to them. Following that the DSPH makes a false equivocation between murder and killing as an attempt to make an emotional appeal combining. It's quite impressive that they were able to combine two fallacies into a singular sentence. No one absolutely no one is being asked to commit murder in the name of the state or any other name for that matter. What is being asked of our men and women of our armed forces is to justifiably kill in order to protect the lives of the innocent. As for there being non-combat positions and the amount of them being relevant to this discussion, that truly depends on your contention. If you contend that people may possibly be forced to kill against their will then it is most certainly relevant to this discussion and merely stating the opposite does not make it so. The rest of the DSPH's argument appears to be unsubstantiated assertions, wild accusations and appeals to emotion. Little of anything of actual substance and then after such an appeal they wish to discourage further discourse. The DSPH's plethora of fallacious argumentation and open ad hominem are very good indicators of the weakness of their case. Aiden Vallen Federalist Parliamentary Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 8 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 155 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 12 |
| Random fact: When elections in a country are held, all bills in the voting phase are reset to the debate phase. |
| Random quote: "If there's anything a public servant hates to do it's something for the public." - Kin Hubbard |