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: Public Saftey Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Calvinist Unionist 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 2076
Description[?]:
| Under the current system, if a group of angry anarchists with clubs decides to march up to city hall, they cannot be stopped, even though they will most likely attempt to do something violent. In advanced first-world countries around the world(OOC: Including nations like the U.K and the U.S.), if the police decide that a group presents a risk to the saftey of the community, they are allowed to disperse the crowd before the group turns into a mob that destroys an entire neighborhood. Why aren't our people? If people want to peacefully protest, they won't march around toting clubs, shouting curses at every Tom, Dick and Harry, and try to cover their faces. We need to make it so that those who have knowledge of public saftey, riots, etc make the decisions, instead of fat bureaucrats in Sondavita who know NOTHING of saftey. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Current: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Proposed: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:45:53, July 04, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Public Saftey Act |
| Message | define 'potential risk' is it when they carry weapons? is it when they make a lot of noise? is it when they look angry? is it when the local government doesn't like what they are marching for? if you break a law, you get arrested. if you do it as part of a mob, you still get arrested. this law does not let people free because they are part of a march. but it does let them march. |
| Date | 03:14:35, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Public Saftey Act |
| Message | Listen, if the people wanted to have a peaceful demonstration they wouldn't be brandishing arms, covering their faces, and threatening everyone they see. If the local government dispersed the group for no reason, a hellstorm would be raised and heads would roll. However, when angry hooligans march up to old ladies and harrass them, or berate little kids trying to go home, telling them how their going to skin them alive, then the group should be disbanded before a riot breaks out. |
| Date | 03:34:03, July 05, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Public Saftey Act |
| Message | ("hellstorm would be raised and heads would roll.") really? this bill makes that kind of thing illegal. |
| Date | 05:42:11, July 05, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Public Saftey Act |
| Message | Huh? This bill doesn't make it so that people can demonstrate against their government. It makes it so they can't brandish swords and attempt to storm the government. |
| Date | 06:43:55, July 05, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Public Saftey Act |
| Message | no, it says that anytime someone THINKS there will be the hint of violence, the police have the right to remove their freedom of assembly. and you say that if this law is abused, and the people don't like who got broken up, they will protest. what do you think will happen when people protest that their other protest got broken up? THAT protest will get broken up. by all means, have police standing by when the clubs and broken bottles come out. but until they break a law, their right to assemble shall not be infringed. |
| Date | 03:13:00, July 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Public Saftey Act |
| Message | No, the law specifically says they may disperse it IF IT POSES A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFTEY. They still MUST give a reason. They can't just disperse groups willy nilly. Oh, and just to let you know, attempting to incite violence IS a crime, and that's what these people are doing. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 229 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 396 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 74 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Political correctness is just tyranny with manners." - Charlton Heston |