|
Post by Jaslandia on Jan 8, 2018 19:13:47 GMT -5
As for those who _fail_ to fill in the census, well yes obviously our options are limited. I, for one, believe any citizen who fails to contribute to the census should be sent to court where the Justices shall be given the option to decide their punishment, from warning, through to prevention of speaking rights on the RMB, to suspension of ability to hold public office until they complete a census. I believe this is a just progression allowing the judiciary the leeway to decide on a proper way of punishing nations to ensure the census is carried out and those found to be repeatedly refusing are deprived of some of their civic rights just as they deprive the region of a accurate information that may be useful in the future. I can respect your deference to the judiciary, Honorable Unfallious (especially as a Supreme Court Justice myself), but even if the punishment stops short of revoking citizenship, the punishments you suggest still seem draconian in comparison to the 'offense' committed. I would normally prefer a fine for such an offense, but that's obviously not an option here. Should this bill pass and I have to judge a case of someone not filing out a census, I would of course rule in accordance with the law. However, my personal opinion is that while a census does have value, the value is not great enough to justify a mandatory census with punishments for non-compliance. Real-world government need such data to perform many essential functions, hence why the census is mandatory in the real world. However, we don't need any of this data; it's just an interesting survey, that might give some insights into the composition of this region (and thus, how we could govern to benefit the composition of the citizenry). But this data is still non-essential, and we shouldn't force citizens to reveal information we don't need.
|
|
|
Post by Anglia Imperium, MP on Jan 9, 2018 7:24:11 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker.
To the Hon. Unfallious, no, this government will have elections ON TIME. The Government indeed DOES NOT have a right in one's country of origin, age, etc. What it does have a right on, and should ask, is what citizens think about the region, it government, and what changes would they like to see. And then implement those changes. What the Honourable member proposed --that country , age and locality be mandatory to state and more advanced questions be optional-- is quite frankly the opposite of what we need. I can serve the CoFN without knowing if it is made up by teens or 60-year-olds. But I want to know what those people think. No Mr. Speaker, age, country and locallity should be optional, with more advanced questions being mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jan 9, 2018 9:29:22 GMT -5
This is so silly. I will not support legislation that authorizes the government to collect information simply for the sake of retaining said information.
As Bearlong (and likely others) have noted, there’s no way this information will be pertinent to the running of this region. Will the teapot flag incorporate a small maple leaf if there are an ample enough of Canadians in the region? What possible policy would be directed by this information? Why the hell has the poll function widely laid dormant if collecting information from the citizenry was guiding policymaking?
To Unf’s point, I don’t believe authorizing the government to collect information because they do not otherwise have much to do is a great rationale for expanding the jurisdiction of the state.
And as Jas mentioned, it’s simply archaic to punish already active citizens in this region for not filling out a series of questions the government decides to churn out every two months.
I understand that there’s not a whole lot of government activity keeping our elected officials busy lately, but legislation that creates a previously non-existent problem and an intrusive way for addressing it is not an answer to our current lull.
|
|
|
Post by merc on Jan 9, 2018 12:01:45 GMT -5
Order, order.
The three-day debate on this Act has come to an end; therefore I must put the question.
As many as are in favor of this act, say ENDORSED. Those opposed say DENOUNCED. All posts must include a vote. If a member has a question, they may post one, but they should at least (temporarily or otherwise) note that they ABSTAIN.
Votes will be tallied one week from now, 16 January.
Order.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jan 9, 2018 12:15:51 GMT -5
ENDORSED
|
|
|
Post by Anglia Imperium, MP on Jan 9, 2018 13:15:39 GMT -5
The idea of a Census is good in itslef. However, I don't think we need a whole Act when the MoIA can simply ask. In addition, the mandatory clause is uttelry impractical and impossible to achieve. My reservations also include locality/country of origin. As such, DENOUNCED
|
|
|
Post by Lex Caledonia on Jan 9, 2018 13:25:36 GMT -5
DENOUNCED
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jan 9, 2018 15:45:12 GMT -5
Denounced. Emphatically.
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Jan 9, 2018 17:57:43 GMT -5
Denounced
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Jan 10, 2018 1:03:46 GMT -5
I still have the concerns I discussed earlier on, so as such, I must DENOUNCE this bill.
|
|
|
Post by Bearlong on Jan 10, 2018 9:21:42 GMT -5
DENOUNCED
|
|
|
Post by Peng on Jan 15, 2018 13:52:57 GMT -5
ABSTAIN
|
|
|
Post by merc on Jan 16, 2018 21:20:29 GMT -5
Order, order.
1 endorsed, 6 denounced. The Noes have it. Bill fails.
Order.
|
|