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: Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement
Details
Submitted by[?]: Proletariat Revolution Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: October 2068
Description[?]:
| While the nation of Likatonia will never go to war, we acknowledge that we are a target no matter how diplomatic we are. With this resolution, we have the authority to override citizens' mobility rights, so that if there is any form of offensive tactic launched on a civilian centre, the citizens have been moved to a safe location outside of the city or into government provided underground shelters. This means that citizens in the city centres will be escorted and directed to government provided underground shelters and those in the suburban areas will be required to evacuate and seek higher ground. To prevent bottle necks in traffic; those who are able to drive will be assigned large vehicles to assist in the moving of citizens. Evacuating citizens will each be allowed to bring one suitcase of basic care items and a few clothes. Citizens unable to travel will be escorted by military officials to suburban shelters. All those registered in the civilian milita are exempt from this measure. Others may apply for exemption as well, and it must be granted if requested. Those enlisted in civilian militias are to help with the defense of the city centres, as well as the the escort and assisted evacuation of fellow citizens. When the threat has passed, civilians may returned to their homes, though to remain on high alert for further government warnings. Lastly, keeping in spirit of the right to freedom of movement, this acts seeks to make evacuation a high priority, keeping the safety of the citizens in heart. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:48:09, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | Make the citizens move if they're in danger? "Father knows best." |
| Date | 13:36:48, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | I disagree with this we will never go to war Bussiness how is our Diplomacy making as a target? What has the Minister of Foriegn Affairs been doing? No it clogs up roads that should be made to stay put otherwise we wont be able to get our units up. However if these 'Civilians' could be used as a delaying tactic then so they should. |
| Date | 17:00:59, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | That is why there is also a clause in there for shelters. And LLP - in times of war, people need direction. They elected their representatives to give them direction. Yes we should make them move to shelters or out of the city. We need to protect our greatest resource - our citizens. Yes this is not in favour of rights, but when there is a threat, there has to be control so that there is no wide spread damage, do you not agree? |
| Date | 17:04:47, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | And I haven't done anything. I just happened to notice that we didn't have any war-measure acts on the books, and regardless, we need to plan for the future. To plan when there is anything happening is simply too late. |
| Date | 19:33:13, June 17, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | Our citizens can be our greatest asset in an attack on a civilian center. We have civilian militias, right? Therefore, the LFP suggests that all registered militia members are considered exempt, and that others can register for an exemption as well. They must register for this ahead of time, but if done, these people are left to defend their own homes against the invaders. This will also give people the choice of whether or not to trust "Father" in where they get moved during an invasion. It's in favor of rights, while also protecting the majority of the populace. To sum up, the LFP wishes to see this amendment made: "All those registered in the civilian milita are exempt from this measure. Others may apply for exemption as well, and it must be granted if requested." |
| Date | 19:34:41, June 17, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | Oh, and, err. An exemption would not mean freedom to use the roads. I don't know how to phrase that exactly, but we -do- need something to prevent traffic bottlenecks. |
| Date | 20:18:42, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | i agree that forcing people to move is an infringement of their rights, as stated in the freedom of movement act... i dunno what we would do about the traffic. |
| Date | 00:20:50, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | yes it is. However, in war there has to be something to prevent chaos. |
| Date | 04:12:18, June 18, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | As it is now, we'll certainly support it. |
| Date | 13:44:49, June 18, 2005 CET | From | mutt Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | Its our duty to protect our citizens. |
| Date | 14:14:03, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | That sounds much better. |
| Date | 21:53:12, June 18, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | RWLP: You wanted the citizens to be a diversionary measure. My clause allows this. Those that stay home will blunt the enemy advance. RP: What's your objection? |
| Date | 04:43:12, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | My first objection pertains to the first line which says our nation will never go to war. I don't believe that should be an absolute statement. The second is this resolution makes it a necessity that the army be responsible for escorting civilians when their objective should be fighting the enemy. My third objection is conscripting citizens to drive the large vehicles. I believe in the event of a war, our citizens are perfectly capable of evacuating on their own, without government instruction. |
| Date | 15:56:03, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Defense Resolution II: Respecting Civilian Movement |
| Message | YEs the are. But the objective of this game is to reduce the number of casualties. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 73 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 97 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 30 |
| Random fact: It is forbidden to impersonate a player or Moderator. |
| Random quote: "Isn't it about time that the US government stop supporting dictatorships and avaricious oligarchies with our tax monies, munitions, and diplomacy?" - Ralph Nader |