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: Convention on the Rights of the Child
Details
Submitted by[?]: Leviathan Party
Status[?]: passed
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: February 2075
Description[?]:
Text found at: http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10948&mforum=particracy#10948 |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 13:29:27, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | The Foreign Ministry and the Leviathan Party fully endorse the final version of the convention. |
Date | 13:53:01, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | We support it as well. its perfectly reasonable. |
Date | 15:58:26, June 29, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | We're in favour too. |
Date | 19:17:47, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | put to vote? |
Date | 00:12:27, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | Yes, though gender neutrality is important in language and shouldn't be lightly discarded. |
Date | 00:41:40, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | Good. |
Date | 03:24:20, June 30, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | against 3, 7, and 8 A child does not need a name at birth nor a nationality, it needs a family. the wording of 7 will be used by some parties to force public education and ban homeschooling give relief to the children first though good in practice, might not always be appropriate. |
Date | 21:39:47, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Party | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | We find this bit of warm and fuzzy legislation nauseating. While most would agree that these ideals are welcome, some sort of practicality must be maintained. For instance, what if mothers or families have more and more children to garner more federal aid? How does the government intend to pay for the pre-natal care, post-natal care, education, and so forth without imposing a new tax? Will a new government agency be created to assess, dispense, and oversee the money paid out to families? This just sounds like a bunch of ballyhoo that will result in a larger, more bloated government. Why must this be an international treaty? Why not discuss our needs here at home and address them with national legislation? We see no point in supporting this. |
Date | 22:03:00, July 02, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | electric mayhem makes good points! where do you consider yourself on the political spectrum? |
Date | 18:13:35, July 04, 2005 CET | From | Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Party | To | Debating the Convention on the Rights of the Child |
Message | We will update our profile to provide more information on our ideology. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||||
yes | Total Seats: 53 | ||||||
no | Total Seats: 11 | ||||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 36 |
Random fact: When elections in a country are held, all bills in the voting phase are reset to the debate phase. |
Random quote: "A racially integrated community is a chronological term timed from the entrance of the first black family to the exit of the last white family." - Saul Alinsky |