Mideast Assembly Thread

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Perhaps it would be better to qualify this by setting a minimum size the land needs to be. If I'm on half an acre, the last thing I want is a trailer pulling up onto my lawn and pitching tents all over. But if I own a massive forest in my backyard, this could be beneficial.

Sure, this sounds reasonable. The idea is of course not for people to be able to camp in someone's backyard, but as you said in a forest where they don't disturb someone. I'm not too well aqauainted with American seize terms, so I'm not sure how big the minimun size should be. Any ideas?

 

[Peter]

Your clause 4 is somewhat difficult to interpret - I would suggest that you probably meant radius and not circumference?

I would suggest that any area under 400 acres needs to be excepted from the legislation (this may sound big, but in reality the amount of actual walkable woodland it will remove from consideration is neglible.

There is also a typo in clause 6 (where not were), and I would suggest that areas where young animals are being reared be excepted also (if only for the safety of roamers).

[HappyWarrior]

One thing I've been reading into that I would be interested in having a law passed for is something saying that you can't make a certain breed of dog illegal.  In many counties and states dogs like pitbulls and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are illegal.  I know some people think these breeds are dangerous it isn't the breed but the owners that create the danger.

[tmthforu94]

One thing I've been reading into that I would be interested in having a law passed for is something saying that you can't make a certain breed of dog illegal.  In many counties and states dogs like pitbulls and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are illegal.  I know some people think these breeds are dangerous it isn't the breed but the owners that create the danger.

That's a great idea, and the statement bolded is 100% correct. Dogs are not born mean.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Your clause 4 is somewhat difficult to interpret - I would suggest that you probably meant radius and not circumference?

I would suggest that any area under 400 acres needs to be excepted from the legislation (this may sound big, but in reality the amount of actual walkable woodland it will remove from consideration is neglible.

There is also a typo in clause 6 (where not were), and I would suggest that areas where young animals are being reared be excepted also (if only for the safety of roamers).

I'd like to amend my bill to correct my mistakes and add Peter's proposals.

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill

1 Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2 It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3 Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4 The direct radiuses of 100 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5 Privately owned land that does not exceed the seize of 400 acres is excluded from this bill.   
6 Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
7 Fields where crops are being grown are excluded from this bill.
8 Areas where young animals are reared are excluded from this bill.
9 During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
10 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, and ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
11 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
12 If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.
 

One thing I've been reading into that I would be interested in having a law passed for is something saying that you can't make a certain breed of dog illegal.  In many counties and states dogs like pitbulls and Staffordshire Bull Terriers are illegal.  I know some people think these breeds are dangerous it isn't the breed but the owners that create the danger.

I would support a bill like this. With the wrong owner most breeds can become dangerous, not just pitbulls, and other attack dogs. I see no reason to punish the good dog owners, because other owners are unable to raise their pets properly.

[Badger]

Your clause 4 is somewhat difficult to interpret - I would suggest that you probably meant radius and not circumference?

I would suggest that any area under 400 acres needs to be excepted from the legislation (this may sound big, but in reality the amount of actual walkable woodland it will remove from consideration is neglible.

There is also a typo in clause 6 (where not were), and I would suggest that areas where young animals are being reared be excepted also (if only for the safety of roamers).

I'd like to amend my bill to correct my mistakes and add Peter's proposals.

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill

1 Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2 It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3 Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4 The direct radiuses of 100 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5 Privately owned land that does not exceed the seize of 400 acres is excluded from this bill.   
6 Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
7 Fields where crops are being grown are excluded from this bill.
8 Areas where young animals are reared are excluded from this bill.
9 During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
10 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, and ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
11 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
12 If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.
 

MUCH better. I just got back on line now, but my point reiterates Peter's. That said, my biggest discomfort with the bill is the intrusion into property owner's privacy immediately around their homes. I like the overall thrust of the bill (it apparently works in Scandinavia) but feel the 100 m barrier around ones residence is still too small. I wouldn't like the idea of having a tract of land 20 X 20 acres (i.e. 400 sq. acres) would allow strangers to squat for the weekend barely a football field from my home and family.

Since we're expanding the minimum property size to 400+ acres, what's the maximum size barrier around ones residence we could establish without fundamentally undermining the law's purpose?
200 m? 300?

Finally, I'm not 100% sure, but is the penalties section even necessary? Visitors would presumably be subject to regular local/state ordinances regulating hunting/distruction of property/vandalism, etc., and landowners trying to wrongfully eject visitors from their property would likewise subject to laws re: menacing, assault, disorderly conduct, etc. If landowners summoned the police for visitors lawfully on their property they would normally just be told "sorry, they're within their rights so call us only if they cause problems".

[Хahar 🤔]

I wouldn't like the idea of having a tract of land 20 X 20 acres (i.e. 400 sq. acres) would allow strangers to squat for the weekend barely a football field from my home and family.

Kind of unrelated, but if it's considered "squatting", then it's not something that should be legalized.

[Badger]

I wouldn't like the idea of having a tract of land 20 X 20 acres (i.e. 400 sq. acres) would allow strangers to squat for the weekend barely a football field from my home and family.

Kind of unrelated, but if it's considered "squatting", then it's not something that should be legalized.

I see your point, but I used the term generically in this case.

[Peter]

I'd like to amend my bill to correct my mistakes and add Peter's proposals.

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill

1 Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2 It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3 Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4 The direct radiuses of 100 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5 Privately owned land that does not exceed the seize of 400 acres is excluded from this bill.   
6 Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
7 Fields where crops are being grown are excluded from this bill.
8 Areas where young animals are reared are excluded from this bill.
9 During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
10 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, and ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
11 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
12 If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.

The above amendment is accepted as friendly unless Badger objects. If there are any further amendments, please submit them in the next 24 hours otherwise we shall proceed to vote on the legislation.

[Badger]

I'd like to amend my bill to correct my mistakes and add Peter's proposals.

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill

1 Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2 It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3 Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4 The direct radiuses of 100 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5 Privately owned land that does not exceed the seize of 400 acres is excluded from this bill.   
6 Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
7 Fields where crops are being grown are excluded from this bill.
8 Areas where young animals are reared are excluded from this bill.
9 During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
10 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, and ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
11 If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
12 If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.

The above amendment is accepted as friendly unless Badger objects. If there are any further amendments, please submit them in the next 24 hours otherwise we shall proceed to vote on the legislation.

No objection.

I offer the following amendment: "100 m" in line 4 changed to "250 m".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just to give my input - I'm not comfortable forcing this on people - I don't plan on signing it.  If you want to make this something voluntary, go right ahead, but I think this is a violation of private property.

[tmthforu94]

Just to give my input - I'm not comfortable forcing this on people - I don't plan on signing it.  If you want to make this something voluntary, go right ahead, but I think this is a violation of private property.

I'm going to have to agree with Governor Inks. It's called "private property" for a reason.

[Badger]

Just to give my input - I'm not comfortable forcing this on people - I don't plan on signing it.  If you want to make this something voluntary, go right ahead, but I think this is a violation of private property.

I'm going to have to agree with Governor Inks. It's called "private property" for a reason.

SC, can you elaborate more on how this works in Scandanavia? What problems, if any, where there when the law passed? Do landowners consider it a significant intrusion into their privacy?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Just to give my input - I'm not comfortable forcing this on people - I don't plan on signing it.  If you want to make this something voluntary, go right ahead, but I think this is a violation of private property.

I'm going to have to agree with Governor Inks. It's called "private property" for a reason.

SC, can you elaborate more on how this works in Scandanavia? What problems, if any, where there when the law passed? Do landowners consider it a significant intrusion into their privacy?

It has been the common law since sometime before the 15th Century so it's a bit hard to tell what the original reaction to the law was. I can imagine some noblemen being upset by commoners being able to walk freely in their forests though.

Anyway here's what Wikipedia says about the Freedom to Roam.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

______________________________________

The Allemanrätt (Freedom to Roam) is mostly considered to be a very positive thing here. For example, when asking Swedes about what they think makes our country the best in the world, the Freedom to Roam is often brought up as a reason. And as it says in one of the quotes, it's actually one of our constitutional rights.

The few here that opposes the law, most often critic polluting. There is a problem that many that walks into the woods do leave some trash behind themselves. A problem that I admit is troublesom, and the reason I introduced the 10th clause. Besides that there really is no major oppotition against it. Personally I can't recall ever hearing anyone bring up privacy as an issue.

We have come to realise that this law is very benfitial. Not only do we get a lot of tourists from Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, that want to experiance, but Swedes in general has great joy from it. People like being able to walk into random forests without having to track down the owner and ask for premission. They like being able take take their kids and sledges to nearest hill when it's been snowing without having to worry if the landowner approve or not. 

I can understand (and I kind of excpected) the opposition to this proposal from the right, because it is in many ways a socialist ideal. It's built on the foundation that, what's mine is yours. So maybe that's why it works well in my very socialist home country, but I think that

I hope that answers your questions Badger

   

[Peter]

Perhaps we want to consider something closer to the lines of the English "Right to Roam", which opened up large estates in English National Parks?

[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.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think we have a Gypsy problem in the Mideast.
But I understand your concern. However as you pointed out, you have this problem in France even though you don't have a law like this. They will pretty much stay where ever it pleases them, and this law will not change that. They still only have the right to stay there for two days, and it would be possible to add a clause to stop big groups of people from camping in the same area.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh that's quite intresting actually. Hunting on someone else property without their consent is one of the things not allowed here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some people will sue you for everything. Not so long a ago I saw a man on TV who sued a guy who his daughter had hit with a car. According to him it was the man who'd been hit's fault and not his own daughter's because the man had been standing in the way. So without doubt some people would try to use your example to get money, but thankfully, I'm sure our judges in the Mideast would do their job and dismiss all such cases very quickly. Trees fall down in the woods, accidents happen, even in the most well taken care of forests. Someone who wanders into a forest made a choice to go in there, and the landowners should therefore not be held responsible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I admit that you're probably rather correct about this part.

 

__________________________________________________

If the issue is mainly the 2nd clause of this bill, I would be willing to compromise by removing that part.

What I consider important is not the right to camp where it pleases you. I grew up being able to walk out into the forest not having to worry about who's property I'm on at the moment. I could play on the pasture next to my dad's house even though the land did belong to a neighbor. We could go swim in the lake nearby 7 am without first having to call and wake up the old lady that owned the lake to ask for her premission. That is what I consider important, and I really think the people of this region should have this right as well.

Especially the right to pass through private land is more vital them people seem to realise. When we learned about the Freedom to Roam in school, our teacher showed us an article about a farmer in some African country (can't remember which country though) who didn't want to sell his land to a corporation that were buying up the land in the area. When he refused to sell the corporation bought all land surrounding his and forbade him to pass through it. He was traped in his own land because if he moved outside of it he'd be breaking the law. So eventually he had to give up his land anyway. Therefore this right is not only to help non-landowners, but landowners as well.

I have to admit I don't see the point in passing a law that would make it voluntary. Landowners already has the right to make their land open to the public if they want to. If we do pass a Freedom to Roam bill (which I obviously hope we will) it should actually have an effect, and not just say: People have the freedom to roam where they want... as long as they've asked for the landowner premission."

[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.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I urge the Governor to veto the bill if passed.

[Peter]

I offer the following amendment: "100 m" in line 4 changed to "250 m".

We are voting on the preceding amendment. Please vote now.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why are meters used, anyway? They're not familiar to most residents.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Why are meters used, anyway? They're not familiar to most residents.

^^^^

The customary system ought to be used instead.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Why are meters used, anyway? They're not familiar to most residents.

My guess would be that the author of the bill is not familiar with the outdated American system. It's just a guess though.

And there are quite a few citizens in the Mideast who orgin from other parts of the world than USA who're only familiar with the metric system as well, so ideal would be to have the mesurments in both the metric and customary system.   

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Oh and I'm Abstain to the amendment. 

[Badger]

I offer the following amendment: "100 m" in line 4 changed to "250 m".

We are voting on the preceding amendment. Please vote now.

Aye