NSG Senate Coffee Shop: 50% off Americanos [NSG Senate]

[Mediciano]

I understand the intentions but, they are unnecessary.

Well I have my ways.

There is already a provision for in-country activities, if I'm not mistaken. It just requires presidential approval.

[The Nihilistic view]

I feel like it is too short for some reason, I'd actually prefer the provinces or whatever to have Provincial Police forces to cover more ground. As I designed the NIB to be the national police force basically.

Also this is not really necessary, the constabulary are the local subdivisions of police whilst the gendarme are the nationwide force. I can't think of a country that does not break its police into localized forces each independent of each other.

[The Nihilistic view]

The Intelligencery should not be operating within Aurentina, they should be a primarily external force dealing with intelligence of foreign nations, in which law enforcement powers granted to them in Aurentina have no bearing.

That was my intention when I created the agency and that's why I am diametrically opposed to this amendment.

We need a force national force so the organisation should be split in three such as GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 in the UK. Or the NSA, FBI and CIA in the US.

[New Zepuha]

That was my intention when I created the agency and that's why I am diametrically opposed to this amendment.

We need a force national force so the organisation should be split in three such as GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 in the UK. Or the NSA, FBI and CIA in the US.

Why not allow the NIB to form sub-divisions?

[New Zepuha]

Well I have my ways.

There is already a provision for in-country activities, if I'm not mistaken. It just requires presidential approval.

I plan on asking for approval today as I take over. Which is what I was referring to as my way.

[Django Unchained]

We need a force national force so the organisation should be split in three such as GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 in the UK. Or the NSA, FBI and CIA in the US.

Why not allow the NIB to form sub-divisions?

I would prefer to have such power split into clearly defined roles. In the UK for example GCHQ and MI6 come under the control of the foreign office whilst MI6 is under the home office. Although I don't really mind if you still have overall control over the lot.

[Kamchastkia]

I feel like it is too short for some reason, I'd actually prefer the provinces or whatever to have Provincial Police forces to cover more ground. As I designed the NIB to be the national police force basically.

Also this is not really necessary, the constabulary are the local subdivisions of police whilst the gendarme are the nationwide force. I can't think of a country that does not break its police into localized forces each independent of each other.

France?

[Django Unchained]

Also this is not really necessary, the constabulary are the local subdivisions of police whilst the gendarme are the nationwide force. I can't think of a country that does not break its police into localized forces each independent of each other.

France?

Like I said, I can't think of acountry that does not break its police into localized forces each independent of each other.

Voilà

[Kamchastkia]

France?

Like I said, I can't think of acountry that does not break its police into localized forces each independent of each other.

Voilà

2 national agencies. Your link doesn't support your point. This doesn't abolish the gendarmerie or all municipal police.

[Django Unchained]

Like I said, I can't think of acountry that does not break its police into localized forces each independent of each other.

Voilà

2 national agencies. Your link doesn't support your point. This doesn't abolish the gendarmerie or all municipal police.

It does, the bill wants to get rid of our regional localized constabulary. France has two types of Municipal local police (One in urban areas and one in rural areas) and 3 types of national police. It total disproves you assertions and thus the need for your bill, its just the usual leftist attempt to make everything more centralized for no good reason at all. The only reason is so it's easier for you to try and control and bend to your will rather than that of local people.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

2 national agencies. Your link doesn't support your point. This doesn't abolish the gendarmerie or all municipal police.

It does, the bill wants to get rid of our regional localized constabulary. France has two types of Municipal local police (One in urban areas and one in rural areas) and 3 types of national police. It total disproves you assertions and thus the need for your bill, its just the usual leftist attempt to make everything more centralized for no good reason at all. The only reason is so it's easier for you to try and control and bend to your will rather than that of local people.

Makes sense, when you consider the principle of subsidiarity:

It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

Granted, it does have its roots in Catholic social teaching, but as a political theory, subsidiarity does allow for great civil liberties at the basic level. What have we to lose from decentralization of responsibilities?

[Yanalia]

2 national agencies. Your link doesn't support your point. This doesn't abolish the gendarmerie or all municipal police.

It does, the bill wants to get rid of our regional localized constabulary. France has two types of Municipal local police (One in urban areas and one in rural areas) and 3 types of national police. It total disproves you assertions and thus the need for your bill, its just the usual leftist attempt to make everything more centralized for no good reason at all. The only reason is so it's easier for you to try and control and bend to your will rather than that of local people.

Point of order: questioning the integrity, honor, and character of the left.

[Mishmahig]

It does, the bill wants to get rid of our regional localized constabulary. France has two types of Municipal local police (One in urban areas and one in rural areas) and 3 types of national police. It total disproves you assertions and thus the need for your bill, its just the usual leftist attempt to make everything more centralized for no good reason at all. The only reason is so it's easier for you to try and control and bend to your will rather than that of local people.

Point of order: questioning the integrity, honor, and character of the left.

Wouldn't it only be applicable if s/he were questioning the integrity/honor/character of one member or Senator, rather than the entire "left"?

[Yanalia]

Point of order: questioning the integrity, honor, and character of the left.

Wouldn't it only be applicable if s/he were questioning the integrity/honor/character of one member or Senator, rather than the entire "left"?

I see nothing in the PPUBA saying there can only be one target. Leftists are undoubtedly Members of the Senate.

[New Waterford]

First Amendment to the Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act

Author: New Waterford (NDP) Sponsors: Battlion (NDP), Central and Eastern Visayas (Ind), Oneracon (R-G), Britanno (NDP), Mitonesia (NDP)

Urgency: Low
Category: Miscellaneous

---

The Senate of Aurentina:

RECOGNISING the good intentions of the Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act,

ALSO RECOGNISING that many religions and religious denominations traditionally perform religious initiation ceremonies on infants,

CONCERNED that said Act, which will be referred to for the rest of this act as the PRFMA, prevents such initiation ceremonies from taking place,

STILL RECOGNISING everyone's right to religious freedom, including minors,

HEREBY ADDS a sub-clause to clause 12 of the PRFMA, which says: "Religious initiation ceremonies performed on infants are exempt from this provision, though said infants may renounce their affiliation with the religious group into which they were initiated once they are physically able to do so."

[Battlion]

Sponsor

[Mishmahig]

Wouldn't it only be applicable if s/he were questioning the integrity/honor/character of one member or Senator, rather than the entire "left"?

I see nothing in the PPUBA saying there can only be one target. Leftists are undoubtedly Members of the Senate.

(1) Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order.
(2) A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.

Eh, it depends on your interpretation, but I'd say the wording of that makes it clear that the remarks must be made specifically towards another member. That sounds like an issue. We should probably fix it.

[Yanalia]

I see nothing in the PPUBA saying there can only be one target. Leftists are undoubtedly Members of the Senate.

(1) Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order.
(2) A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.

Eh, it depends on your interpretation, but I'd say the wording of that makes it clear that the remarks must be made specifically towards another member. That sounds like an issue. We should probably fix it.

Leftists are specific Members of the Senate.

[The Nihilistic view]

Wouldn't it only be applicable if s/he were questioning the integrity/honor/character of one member or Senator, rather than the entire "left"?

I see nothing in the PPUBA saying there can only be one target. Leftists are undoubtedly Members of the Senate.

No, it has to be against one specific named person and that person has to be a senate member. Since Leftists are more than one person (I don't name a specific person) and not all leftists are senators it does not apply.

[Battlion]

If a ruling states that this breaks PPUBA, we're being a bit obsessive.

[Yanalia]

I see nothing in the PPUBA saying there can only be one target. Leftists are undoubtedly Members of the Senate.

No, it has to be against one specific person and that person has to be a senate member. Since Leftists are more than one person and not all leftists are senators it does not apply.

It doesn't have to be one person. The remark does indeed question the integrity, honor, and character of specific Members of the Senate. It isn't relevant if there are also leftists outside the Senate, since the remark does target specific Senators.

I would also like to point to the precedent of "Voting out Business Owners Without Owning Shares is Stupid and Illegal" proposal, where "stupid" was ruled as an insult against those who did not share Nepal's view.

[The Nihilistic view]

If a ruling states that this breaks PPUBA, we're being a bitobsessive.Leftist

What do you think of my correction?

[Kouralia]

Like I said, I can't think of acountry that does not break its police into localized forces each independent of each other.

Voilà

2 national agencies. Your link doesn't support your point. This doesn't abolish the gendarmerie or all municipal police.

Way to read the article.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

First Amendment to the Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act

Author: New Waterford (NDP) Sponsors: Battlion (NDP)

Urgency: Low
Category: Miscellaneous

---

The Senate of Aurentina:

RECOGNISING the good intentions of the Protection of Religious Freedom for Minors Act,

ALSO RECOGNISING that many religions and religious denominations traditionally perform religious initiation ceremonies on infants,

CONCERNED that said Act, which will be referred to for the rest of this act as the PRFMA, prevents such initiation ceremonies from taking place,

STILL RECOGNISING everyone's right to religious freedom, including minors,

HEREBY ADDS a sub-clause to clause 12 of the PRFMA, which says: "Religious initiation ceremonies performed on infants are exempt from this provision, though said infants may renounce their affiliation with the religious group into which they were initiated once they are physically able to do so."

Sponsored.

[The Nihilistic view]

No, it has to be against one specific person and that person has to be a senate member. Since Leftists are more than one person and not all leftists are senators it does not apply.

It doesn't have to be one person. The remark does indeed question the integrity, honor, and character of specific Members of the Senate. It isn't relevant if there are also leftists outside the Senate, since the remark does target specific Senators.

I would also like to point to the precedent of "Voting out Business Owners Without Owning Shares is Stupid and Illegal" proposal, where "stupid" was ruled as an insult against those who did not share Nepal's view.

The words "directed specifically at another Member" from the bill clearly show that this law is only enforceable in the singular.