Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

I don't support any such ban.  I think people should have the right to decide if they want to smoke.  It's up to the restaurants or other establishments to make their own decisions otherwise.

What are we defining as public place?  Restaurants? city sidewalks? anywhere outside of your own home?

Areas with a roof, not owned by private persons or privately owned but open to public regarding civil security and protection laws.
(in France, we've got a law that define ERP, "établissements recevant du public", which firemen and state civil servants have to check in order to see if they can stay open to public, with enough emergency way-outs, etc.)

A good idea, but, of course, not any dollar for facilities to smokers: they can smoke in "open" areas, that's all. If they want specific structures, they ahev to pay for them.
If I want to eat chocolate in public places, I don't demand that public money funds a free chocolate-delivery.

[big bad fab]

I don't support any such ban.  I think people should have the right to decide if they want to smoke.  It's up to the restaurants or other establishments to make their own decisions otherwise.

What are we defining as public place?  Restaurants? city sidewalks? anywhere outside of your own home?

Areas with a roof, not owned by private persons or privately owned but open to public regarding civil security and protection laws.
(in France, we've got a law that define ERP, "établissements recevant du public", which firemen and state civil servants have to check in order to see if they can stay open to public, with enough emergency way-outs, etc.)

A good idea, but, of course, not any dollar for facilities to smokers: they can smoke in "open" areas, that's all. If they want specific structures, they ahev to pay for them.
If I want to eat chocolate in public places, I don't demand that public money funds a free chocolate-delivery.

The point is that you're allowed to eat chocolate in public. Why should they have to pay for structures in which to smoke when you took away their places?

I meant "if I want to eat chocolate in OPEN public places". Without a roof.

[big bad fab]

In clause 1, can't you write "buildings, establishments and infrastructures (the latter not opened to fresh air)", or something like that, because public transports aren't precisely buildings or establishments ?

Sorry for my English words which are not precise enough, but everyone may have understood what is my suggestion.

[big bad fab]

The problem is that when you allow someone, even within strict limits, to stay on other's private property, there's always a risk of squatting beyond those limits (of time, of land, etc) and, AFTERWARDS, it's very hard to put the squatters off, because you need a decision from a judge and you need the police, etc.
So, don't take the risk... Only voluntary landowners should be allowed to greet roamers, campers or whoever they want.
The principle of private property must prevail.
And I thank our governor for his clear position.

In France, we've got many problems with Gypsies on (public or private) lands, who stay far longer than they are allowed to and whom you cannot push away as it would result in fightings with the police forces.

In France, the only exception to private property is the right to hunt on someone else's land, but only provided this land has no fence.

Wait, when you speak of Scandinavian countries, you of course speak of societies with far more individual respect for environment than in other countries (even our fine MidEast ).

Another problem with your proposal is that, when roamers or campers wound themselves on someone else's land (e.g. because there are wounding wastes or because this land isn't maintained and a dead tree falls on the campers), wouldn't some of them try to make the landowner responsible ?

And your 10th clause is completely unrealistic. It's not at all a protection.
Someone who wants to camp freely doesn't go the owner's house to declare his identity and give his card number in case he is fined at the end... !
And how do you legally prove who is responsible for "disturbances" ?

This proposal must be transformed to be about PUBLIC lands.
You may also create support for private landowners who VOLUNTARILY open their land.

[big bad fab]

Your African example isn't a good one as, abuting the farmer's land, there were no public lands which could be ways on which he could get out of his home, travel, make trade, carry out his crop or his cattle, etc.
As you've insisted in your own answer, we're in MidEast

My French examples were just FYI. I take Gypsies in France because it's well known and it's with many people (so more a problem when you have to dislodge them), but it can be with one man alone, but a very violent one, and your fines wouldn't do anything to prevent him from squatting your land.

I would add that some damages can't be compensated for,
as they may be massive (an entire forest burnt after just a small barbecue, for example)
or with consequences on the long term (a chemical pollution with products that "live" for decades or just one multi-centennial tree that is cut)
or just because money can't make it for nature, for natural diversity, for small ecological equilibrium.

You may think these examples are excessive when you've just aimed at camping, but when we introduce legislation, we must think about all the possible consequences.

[big bad fab]

Our Governor's proposal isn't exactly to switch to a voluntary scheme.

You have to voluntarily REFUSE to open your land. We all know that many people won't bother to call the Department of Natural Resources to make clear that they refuse.

The problem is the same (sorry for the comparison) with the fate of your organs after your death. In some countries, you have to say explicitly that you authorize surgeons to pick your organs; in other countries, you have to refuse explicitly, because the law is the other way round.

You rightly points to the need not to spend more on this. That's why fiscal incentives are, indeed, not acceptable.

But, in the case of our Governor's proposal, the Department of Natural Resources already exists: just taking the explicit refusals into account in a register, linked with the land registry office, doesn't cost anything.

Our Governor shows his openness and has tried to do all he can in the limits of a big principle: private property, which is written in our law and in Atlasia's constitution.

But I'm just a citizen of the MidEast region giving you his opinion. I let you proceed.
Thanks for your attention.

[big bad fab]

As a citizen, I respectfully disagree with the proposal called "Mideast Sexual Health Bill".

- First of all, I don't think public money should be used to subsidize items that are for private and personal use.
What is more, at a time of economic crisis and budgetary constraints, even on other health spendings.
Of course, if this proposal is voted, there will be a windfall or bonanza effect for many people who can afford these devices, but who will go to public medical facilities to get free devices. And, based on the necessary privacy of the delivery, it would be of course irrealistic to check personal financiel resources...

And if you begin to subsidize one type of items, you may soon have demands for subsidizing anything else in the same category or other "health" devices.
Furthermore, a "reasonable" amount isn't precise enough to prevent this new spending to grow out of control.

- Following this argument, I may add that this proposal entails that the Regional Government favors some types of contraception over other ones.
This proposal would favor uses of costlier means of contraception, over means of contraception that don't cost anything.

- Secondly, there is a limit to the public intervention in private matters. You want to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions, which is a good idea.
But you must first rely on information, education and personal responsibility. A government should first view its citizens as adults and take measures only when the problem is obviously out of control and when personal responsibility isn't enough to tackle it. I don't think this is the case for the moment.

You may argue that this a public health problem, but eating badly is a far bigger public health problem and the government doesn't plan to subsidize massively "safe" food (and wouldn't have the financial resources to do it).

- Finally, I ask a question about the timeliness of this proposal, just before the election, whereas our Region is plagued with foreclosures, budgetary constraints with less tax revenues and, furthermore, high unemployment, , as Sweedish Cheese underlined it accurately in his candidacy speech.

One may wonder whether it is a real priority on the Assembly's agenda or if it is a way of intervening in the campaign ?

I'm sorry to take again the liberty of interrupting the Assembly's debates, but some questions have to be asked and some arguments have to be put forward.

Thanks for your attention.

[big bad fab]

Sorry, I was a bit busy for having answered immediately to your arguments.
As you want to call for a vote on the matter, I won't be long.

In a nutshell, I always think we should first (even if not only) rely on personal and individual responsibility and support it to "emerge" and prevail.
It's the only long term solution.

In France, when the HIV began to be less talked about because of flat statistics and of less media covering, the use of condoms declined and other campaigns on personal responsibility had to be revived by the health administration and by the gay associations.
Whereas condoms are available at very low prices (and even free in some medical cases), the use of them just declined, and not especially among poor people: they were just viewed as "boring", especially among upper classes...

So, many good theoretical aims and principles are inaccurate in real life.

Anyways, I let our Assemblymen deliberate and vote quietly.

BTW, Peter, there was no personal offence in my final question. We are in a game and, when one wants to play "seriously" in this game, as we are in an electoral period, one has to ask .
It's a bit difficult sometimes to see differences between Atlasians hwo post only for fun, Atlasians who are entirely serious, Atlasians who say they play but push very serious bills, Atlasians who are never in the same logic, etc.
That's why it's better to make things clear.

[big bad fab]

Hey guys, decided to move here.

Pacific region is mostly none moving and the Mideast here seems pretty fast and up to date.

Welcome to the region!

This is, indeed, a very lively region, with interesting Assembly debates, experienced executive and legislative leaders and suspenseful elections ().

[big bad fab]

Thank you Badger, very well said. I am completely behind this bill.

As the son of a dog breeder, who has spent my entire life surrounded by big packs of dogs (My parents, and sister currently own seven together) I am very much aware that most breeds are bred just for the reason to create certain characteristics that the owner find useful. Some dogs are natural hunters, others have basic instics telling them to herde sheep, some will be prone to guarding, and quite a few are suppose be cute and cuddly. This is true.

However the fact that certain breeds have certain talants, does not mean all dogs of that breed will have the same temper or personality. Because just like with humans, it is not our genes who makes us who we are, but the way we were raised and under which circumstances.

Therefore, a dog's behaviour, and wether it turns out to be aggressive or not, has much more to do with its owner than its breed.

I have seen supposebly cute and lovely cocker spaniels turn into horrefying monsters due to bad owners, and I have seen Pitbulls calm and sweet as sheep with the right owner.

Now the reason that some breeds seem to be more agressive has to do with traits. Some breeds have indeed been bred as potential attack dogs in war and battle. Others are meant to be dominating. That is the reason many unexperienced owners who are not well schooled in how to raise a dog, might have more trouble with a pitbull than a dachshund for say. That is however no just cause to punish the owners who very well know what they're doing, and who raise wonderful dogs of the brand pitbull, staffordshire terrier, and American pit bull terrier.

I don't think the goverment should get to decide which kinds of dogs get to live and which get to die. As Big Bad Fab said only a few pages ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't seen this before...
But I can't let our fine Swedish Cheese use my words on one proposal to justify another one.
Clever but not very "clean" quote ! Tactics, tactics...

Yes, I think we must rely on personal responsibility first.

Sexual matters are, first, private matters. If you aren't "responsible" in your sexual behaviour (in the case referred to by the proposal), you may be the first victim yourself.
(of course, there is the case of rape, but I don't think the government will be able to control if the rapist is using condoms freely distributed by the official administration...).

In the case of your dogs proposal, if the dog breeder or the dog owner aren't responsible, it's ANOTHER people that may be a victim.

So, you CAN'T compare the 2.
The government is legitimate (even if not bound) to intervene when personal irresponsibility may harm OTHERS.
This is a big difference...

[big bad fab]

The election would have been far greater with you.
The Assmebly and the Mideast are losing a great member, a great memory and a great contributor.
So sad...
But don't leave entirely the forum, please...

[big bad fab]

As he may now be considered as an experienced assemblyman, as I am newly elected in this assembly and doesn't wish to become Speaker and as he coughs in a dignified way,

I hereby nominate Sweedish Cheese to Speaker of this Assembly.

Does my colleague Badger second this nomination ?

[big bad fab]

While my colleagues are thinking about the best name for Speaker,

may I ask my honourable colleagues and our Governor if this is the most up-to-date text of our Constitution, so that I can work on the real current words ?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Third_Constitution

And may I ask if this is the most up-to-date collection of our laws ?
If this is the case, the most recent statutes aren't readable easily, in the absence of any valid link.
And is this list really complete ?

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Statute

[big bad fab]

My fellow Assemblymen, dear Governor,

I'm sorry to be contrarian as soon as we begin our session, but I can't approve the Freedom to Roam Bill and my reasons are mostly principled ones.

- First, the right to private property and to peacefully use it is sacred, of course in Atlasia, but even in old European Bills of Rights. This right should not be infringed in any way, even by Law.

Our Mideast citizens want to be quiet in their own properties and to use peacefully their private lands.

That's a principle but it's also a matter of being realistic, as I've said in August.
When you allow someone, even within strict limits, to stay on other's private property, there's always a risk of squatting beyond those limits (of time, of land, etc) and, AFTERWARDS, it's very hard to put the squatters off, because you need a decision from a judge and you need the police, etc.
So, don't take the risk... Only voluntary landowners should be allowed to greet roamers, campers or whoever they want.

- The radiuses around houses are entirely theoretical and wouldn't prevent roamers AT ALL from infringing the Clause 14 of our Bill of Rights: All persons shall have the right to privacy in resepct of their personal and family lives.
How would a roamer be aware he is inside or outside this radius ?

- Another problem with this proposal is that, when roamers or campers wound themselves on someone else's land (e.g. because there are wounding wastes or because this land isn't maintained and a dead tree falls on the campers), some of them may try to make the landowner responsible.
And I cannot agree on a Law which force a private owner to open his property and then, he is the one who is sued for other people's behaviour.

- The 11th clause is of course an unrealistic illusion. It's not at all a protection for a private owner who, again, hasn't asked for anything.
Someone who wants to camp freely doesn't go the owner's house to declare his identity and give his card number in case he should be fined at the end becaue of problems...
It wouldn't be possible to legally prove who is responsible for "disturbances".

Another point is that the relative amounts of fines (500-250) for a roamer who is responsible for "disturbances" that may be really serious and for a private owner who is just putting signs in his property (maybe because he wouldn't be aware that he has to declare that his property is closed) are quite... surprising. All the more that the private owner may finish in jail...
Here, I think that, here, an atomic bomb is used to kill a fly.

- What is more, some damages can't be compensated for,
as they may be massive (an entire forest burnt after just a small barbecue, for example)
or with consequences on the long term (a chemical pollution with products that "live" for decades or just one multi-centennial tree that is cut)
or just because money can't make it for nature, for natural diversity, for small ecological equilibrium.

- The problem with all these points is that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the side of the private owner, not on the side of the roamer or the camper, whereas it's the owner's right who is infringed.
Again, on principle, I cannot agree with this.

BTW, the closing after written notice to the local police is a technocratic procedure that will clutter our police, whose mission isn't a purely administrative and archiving one.

- All those procedures, all those controls, all those clauses trying to put limits were introduced with a kind and fine spirit of compromise and we must thank the authors for that.
But, in some cases, compromise may lead to excessively complicated and technocratic clauses: Law must remain simple.

- The only way I can agree on such a proposal is when it's changed to be about PUBLIC lands only, which may be more open to camping if you want, for example,
and about PRIVATE lands that their owners VOLUNTARILY and EXPLICITLY declare open to free roaming.
You may even ease roaming where it's possible by gathering and spreading information in official websites, leaflets, etc. about private lands voluntarily open and public lands.

I thank you for your attention.

[big bad fab]

The Mideast Freedom to Roam Where Inks Tells You Bill

NO.

[big bad fab]

To Vepres: a respectful LOL at your smelling. I'm not candidate to anything. Don't misinterpret Hamilton's recent vocal break from the gallery .

To Badger: no, I think it's not voluntary.
The rule is the freedom to roam, the exception is the landowner who should notify to the government that he doesn't want to be included in "open areas".
And, BTW, it's not really fair to force landowners that don't want to open their properties to buy signs and to make them "clear" (it may be difficult and many roamers would, volutnarily or not, pretend that they don't have seen the signs... if you've passed through some forests, you will understand what I'm saying).
I won't rewrite the law the other way, because it would be far too different from Sweedish Chesse's initial proposal.

As for the burden of proof, of course, you have currently to prove when someone damages your property, but the landowner is presumed to be right.
When you let everybody pass through properties, judges will take into account that, without any more evidence, a person who passes through is presumed to be right.

As for penalties, you're right, I won't propose any amendment as my reasons are principled ones, as I've written.

My opposition may seem to be harsh, but the Freedom to Roam wouldn't be only allowing nice families quietly walking through some desert woods.
This is about private property, which is an important constitutional right and, I may say, even more than that. (It will be the subject of one of the proposals I'll put forward this week, BTW.)
And this is about being careful about the environment. With due respect, I may say that Sweedish Cheese's idea is a bit too much a city-dweller's one (and of course duely inspired by far more civic behaviour in some North European countries ).

[big bad fab]

I'd like to introduce the following bill to the Assembly:

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agrivulture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose registered office is located in the Mideast. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business located in the Mideast shall be selected.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales.

The aim is to boost the local economy, while setting clear rules for public purchases (which should reinforce real competition) and promoting an eco-friendly policy.

This draft needs of course debates and amendments.
But I think that, on the principle, these 3 main points in the bill may be agreed on as priorities for the Mideast.

[big bad fab]

You're welcome and right on both remarks.

The problem with the amount of products or services produced in the Mideast is that it may be hard to assess precisely. But rules can be set: location of factories, of HQ, of offices; location of sites on which the society intervenes (when she delivers outside services).
The text should be amended on this point, you're right.

As for the percentages, it must be better written, you're right too. The percentages apply to the amount of goods or services produced with the quoted standards (which are officially certified by specialized societies) and delivered to the public institution.

And my law English language may be weak. So, do not hesitate to make amendments on this too .

[big bad fab]

While our colleague Badger is working on amendments, I just want to ask my fellow assemblymen about the meaning they give to the word "Law" specified in our Constitution.

Does it refer to no specific level of legislation, or to constitutional level of legislation, or to legislative level of legislation ?

I don't want to misinterprete our supreme "rule" in my next proposals.

[big bad fab]

If it's ok for BBF I wouldn't mind if we prosponed this bill to next week when you're back full time. This really isn't my area of expertise so I don't believe I'd personally be able to offer any good constructive amendments to it.

So I think it'd be better if we got your DUI out of the way this week (plus a small bill I'm planing to introduce) and then hit this current bill full power once your back. That way we'd be able to make sure this bill ends up being the best bill we could get, without the Assembly going into a coma for the whole week.

I agree.

[big bad fab]

While our colleague Badger is working on amendments, I just want to ask my fellow assemblymen about the meaning they give to the word "Law" specified in our Constitution.

Does it refer to no specific level of legislation, or to constitutional level of legislation, or to legislative level of legislation ?

I don't want to misinterprete our supreme "rule" in my next proposals.

Don't forget my question !

[big bad fab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he's going for the new penalties. Personally I think it'd be slightly odd to have the old fines for section three, after raising them in section one, but I definatley see that it can be interpeted either way as it is now written.

It should probably be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I couldn't find much to object about as far as this bill is concrned. To me there isn't any good arguments in favour of letting someone who's been arested get out of taking necessary tests to prove (or potentionally disprove) that person's crime. I was actually quite surprised the first time Badger told me that an arrested person in this region could refuse to coropurate in this manner, as I consider it a matter of course for our police to have the right to make these basic tests on persons who're on good grounds suspected for comiting a crime.

I agree with my fellow assemblyman Sweedish Cheese.

It's a good, useful and necessary bill.

[big bad fab]

The problem is, indeed, to have only 3 assemblymen.
5 is indeed a good number: it remains manageable, it remains easy to find 5 Atlasians ready to work in the Assembly and it makes ties far, far less likely.

I'd be ready to agree on 5 assemblymen but only with a change in our electoral system.
The problem is, I won't be able to make a proposal on this in the days to come.

If my fellow assemblymen think we should approve a constitutional amendment on this subject quickly, it would be better to reinstate a Lt. Governor, nominated by the Governor and with a confirmation vote by the Assembly. Indeed, we need a "consensus" man, precisely able to break a tie in a clever manner and after having tried to reach an agreement with everybody.

If we do not think we need to decide quickly on the subject (and I don't think we need, as few bills were recently blocked by a tied situation), I'll soon propose to create 2 more assemblymen and I'll propose a new electoral system.

Any idea of a referendum to break a tie must be rejected. The Assembly is already the people's will in legislative matters. And our Governor's remark is right.

[big bad fab]

MIDEAST DRUNK DRIVING REFORM BILL

1) The minimum fine for a first conviction under the existing Mideast DUI Statute is hereby raised to $500. The minimum fine for any second or more conviction under the Mideast DUI Statute is hereby raised to $1000.

2) After lawful arrest for DUI and proper request by a peace officer pursuant to Mideast law for chemical testing of the arrestee's breath, blood or urine, refusal by the arrestee to submit to chemical testing as requested is punishable by law.

3) The degree of offense and minimum and maximum penalties for violation of section 2 above shall be equivalent to penalties for violation of the Mideast DUI Statute, as they're outlined by section 1 of this bill.

4) To the extent that the degree of offense and minimum and maximum penalties are determined by the defendant's number of prior convictions, prior convictions of this statute and/or the Mideast DUI Statute are considered "prior convictions" for enhancing penalties for both this statute and the Mideast DUI Statute.

5) Prosecution or conviction under this statute does not preclude prosecution or conviction under the Mideast DUI Statute arising out of a single incident, but sentence may not be imposed for both offenses out of any one single incident.[/quote]


AYE

[big bad fab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

25 % of all  the Regions registered members are not a small number. So it's not the most simple thing to get that many posters to sign a petention for it be put on a ballot. I know it was done whith the latest Abortion Statue, but besides that I haven't heard of someting ever getting enough support to be put up for a vote. 

My thinking on the referendum idea was that, well if the Assembly can't make up their mind, we should ask the people who they're representing what they think.

As I said though, I think that might be to make something as simple as a tie overly complicated, and would therefore prefer if we just allowed the Governor to break a tie. 

My thinking is that, if the Assembly can't make up its mind, that's because the idea isn't "mature" and the bill should wait.
Referendum are for big subjects, for constitutional and Rights issues, even for emergency situations, not for "usual" legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I didn't think of that, but you are indeed correct that it could be troublesome, if it's abused in the manner which you described. In light of this I'll really have to reconsider if it's a good idea after all.

This remark is indeed a big one and that's why I don't agree with your proposal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two Ayes, two Nays, and one Abstain is as likely as one Aye, one Nay, and one Abstain. The Senate, with their ten members, far more often tie on an issue than we do in the Assembly. So I don't think the seize of the Assembly will have much effect.

I wouldn't be entierly opposed to growing the Assembly with one or two more seats, although I have my reservation. I believe that is an entierly different question though, which deserves it's own proposal and its own time.

Statistically, with 5, you have lesser risks to have a tie... But, you're right, contrarian examples are numerous. And, well, you may say that 7 is better than 5, etc.
I think 5 is a good compromise between a manageable assembly and a more representative assembly.

Nevertheless, I didn't intend to propose such a change very soon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally I don't really see the need for a Lt. Governor. There was a reason we got rid of this office in the first place. The very few responsibilities that Lt. Governors usually have in other regions is here held by the Speaker. Thus the only function he'd have is to break ties, and although I think it's important we get clerification on how to handle ties, they still only happen as often as snow in Mississippi. So we'd have an entire political office, who'd just exist to break a tie once or twice a year.

Besides, if the Lt. is nominated by the Governor, he will most likely have the same oppinion on most issues as him. And even if they would disagree, the Governor would just veto the legislation if it passed, so the result would still be the same as if we simply gave the power to the Governor himself.

I'm open to hearing more arguments in favour of the Lt. Governorship though.

PS: Nice to see some lively debate taking place here again

The Lt. Gov. would be nominated by the Gov. but confirmed by the assembly. So, they wouldn't be just "bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet". But, of course, he could be chosen by the universal suffrage.

The Lt. Gov. would replace the Gov. in case of vacation or even small leaves of absence. I haven't been here for a long time, but I'm sure the problem has arisen even in the Mideast region and even with our current great Governor.

The Lt. Gov. could be in charge of gathering information for the Assembly when in debate and of periodically assessing legislation.

He could be in charge to follow national legislation, to see which must be transposed or adapted in the region.
He could be in charge to update the Wiki pages on the Mideast, or at least to help the Governor in doing it (especially the Statute pages).

I haven't intended to start a big debate or a big reform on this, but such an office could be made easily useful.