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[?]: 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: November 2342
Description[?]:
| The AP wishes to reintroduce this bill. |
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 | 15:13:10, January 06, 2007 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | To restate our position, no one should get to disperse a group on the basis that future violence may take place or on some future risk, only when actual acts have been committed. If we intend to uphold the rule of law we cannot allow the police to act on presumptions. Furthermore there is the important question of how "potential risk to public safety" will be interpreted. Will, say, opposition supporters be more of a risk than pro-government ones? |
| Date | 17:56:08, January 06, 2007 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | The NCP will support. |
| Date | 03:48:11, January 07, 2007 CET | From | Ikradone Nationalsozialistische Partei | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | We will, of course, support. |
| Date | 03:56:59, January 07, 2007 CET | From | Absolutist Party | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | If a group is chanting, and is armed with clubs, and other weapons, and is about to attack, should not the police be able to disperse them before this happens? You say we can not act before a crime is permitted. If that is the case... A man is going to go murder an enemy. We know he will do it, yet, under your logic, we can not stop him, or arrest him and force him into counseling, until he actually commits the assault or murder. |
| Date | 14:01:33, January 08, 2007 CET | From | Progressive Centrist Democrats | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | If they are armed with weapons, they break our weapons laws and have committed a crime. so your argument is ultimately flawed. |
| Date | 23:06:11, January 08, 2007 CET | From | Absolutist Party | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | {erhaps the LDRP should actually read the laws before sputing their propaganda: Weapons allowed to private citizens Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public, and there are further restrictions on places where they may be carried. Weapon concealment Where weapons are carried, this must be done openly. They would be in the open, hence, legal. |
| Date | 03:54:04, January 09, 2007 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | Oh please. You know very well that law is meant to make concealing weapons illegal. It doesn't necessarily mean that brandishing a machete is legal either. You can make carrying weapons in a public assembly illegal if you so wish. Ever watched the movie or read the short story Minority Report by Phillip K. Dick, or starring Tom Cruise? With probable cause that a crime is about to be committed you can indeed apprehend the person. But how often are you going to know? You can certainly take precautions, you can do a catch-and-release to disrupt the plans. But you cannot charge someone for a crime they will commit in the future. It's simple logic. Nothing prevents precautions being taken, like riot police being assembled. But until actual violence occurs, there is no grounds to disperse the group, because this would be an arbitrary decision with plenty of potential for abuse. All too easily causes the government of the day doesn't like will be a danger to the public. All too easily the threshold of "a threat to public safety" will get lower and lower and you might as well take away the right to assemble altogether. This bill will compromise more than our liberal heritage or our civil rights, it will compromise the rule of law and the essential character of Ikradon - free and open - itself. |
| Date | 03:25:57, January 10, 2007 CET | From | Absolutist Party | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | "You can make carrying weapons in a public assembly illegal if you so wish." But it is not, hence, the need for this law. |
| Date | 10:57:37, January 10, 2007 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Anti-Riot Act |
| Message | Now that reasoning simply does not make sense. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 253 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 425 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 47 |
| Random fact: In Particracy players are only allowed to play as one party at a time. Want to swap nations? Inactivate your current party and make a new one! Want to return? Request Moderation to reactivate your party on the forum! |
| Random quote: "Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates." - Gore Vidal |