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: Federation Defense Act of 2222
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivianese Militarist Party
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: June 2224
Description[?]:
| It is agreed and so ordered by the Assembly that: 1) The Federation reserves the right to use biological and/or chemical weapons at any time. 2) Local authorities make provisions for self defense. 3) The people own all defense industries. 4) Open homosexuality is not tolerated in the armed forces. ~For the Federation People!~ |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: No new buildings may be constructed unless they feature provisions for civil defence.
Current: Every public building is required to feature provisions for civil defence and at least 50% of spaces must be allocated to private citizens.
Proposed: Local authorities are responsible for building and maintaining shelters.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns all defence industries.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Military stance on homosexuality.
Old value:: Homosexuality is allowed in the military.
Current: Homosexuality is allowed in the military.
Proposed: Open homosexuality is not tolerated in the military. The military has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:15:52, May 05, 2006 CET | From | Free Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | Hmph. Soldiers more afraid of homosexuals than combat. Malivia doesn't stand a chance. |
| Date | 18:28:49, May 05, 2006 CET | From | Ministerial Party | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | Well the best work out before a war isn't sticking your cock up other soldier's arses. Also, it's similar to the fact that men will risk themselves to save women in combat - we expect homosexuals to do the same for their... 'partners'. |
| Date | 00:16:36, May 06, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | We believe there shouldn't be open homosexual relations as there are no open sexual relations in the military, period. Why should they get a benefit because they are discriminated elsewhere? Equality means everyone is equal. |
| Date | 03:48:38, May 06, 2006 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | But we have women serving alongside men currently and that issue is not addressed by this bill. Exactly equality means equality, thus there should be no ban on homosexuality. If there is a desired ban on open sexual relationships that is fine but we cannot single out those who practice one form and not the other. Why are we shifting control to the local governments for defense. It seems like the current administration is working hard to weaken Malivia rather then provide for its defense. |
| Date | 00:17:00, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | Open homosexuality is unallowed just as open heterosexuality is not allowed. We call this Public Displays of Affection and no matter who is involved, it is not allowed. This is equality in practice. Currently, it is allowed to be openly homosexual; however, that is unfair to those that are not homosexuals. We are allowed local governments to provide for their shelters as it is their responsibility. Local transportation companies can better be utilized locally than nationally to evacuate and get to shelters. Also, sometimes it is advantageous to have one large community shelter than every building having a shelter. |
| Date | 03:48:48, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | We are uncertain of the wording of this bill in regards to the 4th article. It seems to us that the wording forbids gays from being openly gay, and instead must hid this fact or be removed from the military. This seems to go a step further then the MMP's explanation. We see this as forbidding a person from letting it known they prefer relations with the same sex, not just forbidding this relations to occur between soldiers. Please elaborate, can a gay man who is married to a male civilian join the military, openly and without fear. Does his spouse receive benefis. And if not can a heterosexual married man join openly, do they receive benefits? We feel that this bill was rushed to a vote without these issues being addressed. |
| Date | 06:06:16, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | Only open homosexuality is barred. It is flexible for a reason. We don't deal with benefits. We only ensure that homosexuality is not practiced openly. So there is no Queer Eye for the Straight Guy crap in the military. No color coordination or any other fruity activity homosexuals like to take part in. Everyone does their job or suffers under a Court Martial and there are no Public Displays of Affection of any kind. |
| Date | 21:01:01, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | This is a smokescreen on the part of the MMP. Surely if all sexual activities are banned already, then there is no need for any new legislation. By adding this clause, you are making even the admittance of homosexual inclinations (rather than activities) to be illegal. Such discrimination would not be faced by heterosexual soldiers. This is merely an attempt to promote one sexual norm over another and we will have no part in it. Instead, as the bisexual leader of the FPA; a party that has openly championed GLBT rights, I have no choice but to commit to complete opposition to this foolish attempt to bring back institutionalised bigotry. ~Alexander Mangan Party Leader |
| Date | 21:01:56, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Free Progress Alliance | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | This is a smokescreen on the part of the MMP. Surely if all sexual activities are banned already, then there is no need for any new legislation. By adding this clause, you are making even the admittance of homosexual inclinations (rather than activities) to be illegal. Such discrimination would not be faced by heterosexual soldiers. This is merely an attempt to promote one sexual norm over another and we will have no part in it. Instead, as the bisexual leader of the FPA; a party that has openly championed GLBT rights, I have no choice but to commit to complete opposition to this foolish attempt to bring back institutionalised bigotry. ~Alexander Mangan Party Leader |
| Date | 21:57:43, May 07, 2006 CET | From | Malivianese Militarist Party | To | Debating the Federation Defense Act of 2222 |
| Message | FPA, STFU. Yes. We said it. You have disregarded everything we said and cannot possibly comprehend what we are saying any longer due to your own ignorance. This is not banning any sexual relation, only those in PUBLIC. KEY WORD. Notice how I spoke of PUBLIC Displays of Affection. Currently it is legal for homosexuals to display affection in PUBLIC which is not equal with heterosexuals who are barred by the Uniform Code of Military Justice from displaying affection in PUBLIC. If you want to make some conspiracy theory out of this, we suggest you contact Oliver Stone. Until then, we ask that you sit down, shut your mouth, and let the real professionals take care of the country that you are too ignorant to run. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 102 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 162 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 37 |
| Random fact: Whilst the use of non-English languages can be appropriate for nation names, party names, constitutional titles and other variables, English is the official language of communication in the game. All descriptive texts and public communications should be in English or at least appear alongside a full English translation. |
| Random quote: "It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope." - Niccolo Machiavelli |