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: Anti Riot Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Absolutist 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 2324
Description[?]:
| To allow the break up of riots, the justice minister, and the whole Absolutist party, repropose the following article. |
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 | 02:05:02, December 03, 2006 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Anti Riot Act |
| Message | We, of course, support this sensible public safety measure so long as Parliament reserves the right to review the application of this new power in a year's time to make sure the police are not abusing it. |
| Date | 02:28:55, December 03, 2006 CET | From | United Peoples Party | To | Debating the Anti Riot Act |
| Message | Realising that the Police will be needed to disperse groups that can become violent not only to the immediate area, but possibly to the entire area we support the Minister of Justice in this bill |
| Date | 04:22:52, December 03, 2006 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Anti Riot Act |
| Message | We still oppose. |
| Date | 14:45:19, December 03, 2006 CET | From | Absolutist Party | To | Debating the Anti Riot Act |
| Message | Why do you oppose FFP? This bill allows police to break up riots, where they can not do this now. |
| Date | 17:13:47, December 03, 2006 CET | From | Lyika ati Isọdọtun | To | Debating the Anti Riot Act |
| Message | That's not true. Violent riots are already covered by other laws, such as those dealing with personal injury or property damage, in which case police can already deal with them. A "threat to public safety" as determined by the police is too vague for our preferences, and we feel that there is more potential for abuse of this law than legitimate use. We say that people should be allowed to assemble in groups as they see fit, but when they begin to break other laws as a result of their assembly, the police have every right to disperse that group. Therefore, the proposed law is unnecessary. |
| Date | 17:35:51, December 03, 2006 CET | From | Absolutist Party | To | Debating the Anti Riot Act |
| Message | If they pose a danger, they must be removed. |
| Date | 23:45:25, December 05, 2006 CET | From | Absolutist Party | To | Debating the Anti Riot Act |
| Message | The will of Ikradon ahs been done. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 363 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 171 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 65 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it's only the people who make them unsafe." - Frank Rizzo |