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: Civil Liberties Enabling and Protecting Freedom Act of - 2212-
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: September 2213
Description[?]:
| 1)This bill allows for the gathering of large groups of people for whatever reason without fear of harassment from the police. These gatherings may include public protests of a certain issue, music festival, political protest, and other large gatherings. Police should only have the right to disperse a crowd after any act of violence or other criminal offense takes place, and not because it may take place. 2) Curfews imposed on our people by the government despite the reason, are not only a violation of our civil freedoms but also unnecessary for both crowd control as well as the protection.of property. In most emergency's and natural disasters people do not take to the streets but remain home regardless of what they are told and armed soldiers roaming Hobrazia's streets during a curfew must not be tolerated. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Current: The police may only disperse a crowd if a state of emergency has been declared.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Curfew policy (curfew time to be determined in the bill description).
Old value:: The national government may impose curfews, but only if a state of emergency has been declared.
Current: The national government may impose curfews, but only if a state of emergency has been declared.
Proposed: No curfew policies may be established.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:04:56, April 10, 2006 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Civil Liberties Enabling and Protecting Freedom Act of - 2212- |
| Message | "This bill allows for the gathering of large groups of people for whatever reason without fear of harassment from the police." - This exists currently. The police may only disperse a group if they are a risk to public safety. As long as said group remains peaceful then there is no risk to the public or property and as such have no fear of the police requiring their dispersal. What would the L-PU prefer, wanton violence spreading throughout the Country before the police are allowed to act? Maybe a death or two, or massive amounts of damage to public and private property? Who foots the bill for the damage? Currently the police only disperse a group if it is a risk, the groups mentioned within this bill would not be a threat and as such would not be stopped. "In most emergency's and natural disasters people do not take to the streets but remain home" - You are joking, right? In most disasters people try and get as far away from anything they believe to be dangerous as fast as they can. In the event of war this could mean people out in the streets during a bombing campaign etc which would be far worse than them staying either in their homes or in public shelters. "armed soldiers roaming Hobrazia's streets during a curfew must not be tolerated." - And they would not be used. The police are well trained and would be perfect for maintaining order during any emergencies, it is afterall what they are trained to do. |
| Date | 11:28:11, April 10, 2006 CET | From | Deltarian Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Civil Liberties Enabling and Protecting Freedom Act of - 2212- |
| Message | I would say that the current laws are perfect for our state and are sensible precautions. Sadly no. |
| Date | 05:20:02, April 11, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Civil Liberties Enabling and Protecting Freedom Act of - 2212- |
| Message | It appears that somehow this bill prevents the ratification of CTPoH ensuring the free speech treaty, whcih is odd because this doesn't restrict rights or free speech. I think the curfew proposal of this bill isnt included as an article in the treaty. |
| Date | 05:34:38, April 11, 2006 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Civil Liberties Enabling and Protecting Freedom Act of - 2212- |
| Message | After reviewing the treaty I can't find anything in this bill that prevents ratification, I don't know what's going on. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 251 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 149 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity. |
| Random quote: "Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity." - Albert Einstein |