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: Freedom to protest
Details
Submitted by[?]: mutt 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: May 2069
Description[?]:
| Our citizens should be allowed to gather together without police dispersing them of something that they MIGHT do. Besides, bad situations occur when police turn up. |
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: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:16:18, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | We need a proposal on this -but the current legislation only allows police to break up situations in which violence is being used or will be used - it is going to be quite obvious if they are carrying weapons or not. therefore we oppose. |
| Date | 01:38:51, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | Yes. However, you could make this an amendment. |
| Date | 05:07:55, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | oppose |
| Date | 11:26:54, June 19, 2005 CET | From | mutt Party | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | sorry ill put the proposal on. |
| Date | 11:29:12, June 19, 2005 CET | From | mutt Party | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | No. The current situation allows the police to disperse a group for something they might not do. In this case, why don't we just put everyone in prison INCASE they commit a crime. |
| Date | 11:49:04, June 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | Well, i suppose if they are being violent the police could just arrest them all... but it might be hard. I hadn't looked carefully at the wording of that, and the problem, I agree, is the word 'potential'. If we could just get rid of that would be the best thing, but in the meantime i suppose that i will have to support. |
| Date | 23:37:54, June 19, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | I see the word potential, but the "no restrictions" part scares me more. Sorry. While I agree with the idea behind this proposal, I just can't support legalizing riots. |
| Date | 06:19:48, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Revolution Party | To | Debating the Freedom to protest |
| Message | We apologise, but after much consideration, in homour of the safety of our people, we feel that this law is currently adequate the way it is, though resolutions containing amendments to improve upon the basic principle is encouraged. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 105 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 95 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocols. |
| Random quote: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper |