Mideast Assembly Thread

[Vepres]

C'mon, new members, get your act together! Get some legislation on the floor.

I spent another 30 minutes this morning brainstorming. I have a few ideas, but I'm not sure which one to go with.

Just propose one and see where it goes.

[Vepres]

Badger, I can't wait for the day you enter the national Senate, great work here.

[Vepres]

I'm afraid that of late I have become very discontented with Atlasia. Recently I have only tended to the forum to see to my duties as Speaker. I have no desire to continue that on a prolonged basis.

The use of what us older posters would call tomato-souping, and the newer posters, zombie voting, has become politically acceptable, and I think that destroys a lot of what made Atlasia a great place.

I now seek a peaceful retirement from Atlasia and the forum at large. Whilst I confess I will likely post next Spring in the run-up to the general election in the UK, that will probably be the height of my participation.

To my successors as Speaker and Assemblymen, I wish you all the luck in the world. The curtain has fallen, its time to get off the stage, and its exactly what I intend to do.

Tomato-souping?

Anyway, very disappointing, another one of the old Atlasians leaves

[Vepres]

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.

With due respect Fab, I don't think you've read this bill very closely. Or at least not reviewed the profound differences between this bill Inks proposed and the original one. For all your pronouncements about the the importance of not "forcing" campers and hikers onto private property you've ignored the fact that this is voluntary with the landowner. Campers and hikers come on to their land with their consent or they're tresspassing, the same as the law has always been. It's as simple as that.

Secondly, I don't understand your opposition to this bill based on potential hazards to private property and the burden of proof for proving damages being upon landowners. That situation is already the law. If this bill were defeated tomorrow what you described would still be the status quo, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

Finally, regarding the proposed penalties, I wrote the possible--not mandatory--jail sentence as a penalty for persons previously convicted who cannot claim ignorance as an excuse, and as a way for a court to suspend jail as a way forcing militia types who refuse to follow the law, or even impose it for the most extreme defendants. Look, if you have a problem with the proposed penalties, offer an amendment proposing reasonable changes and I for one would be open to considering it. I suspect you might not though as your opposition to this bill is obviously far more fundamental then that.

Inks did a good job ensuring this bill would protect landowners rights and making the program voluntary, so I'm sorry but I'm having real trouble figuring out where you're coming from here.

*Takes a deep breath through nose* I smell a December at-large candidate