B905 -Protection of Minors from Propaganda... Bill 2015 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Protection of Minors from Propaganda Promoting Non-traditional Sexual Relationships Bill 2015, The Hon. Unown Uzer MP, seconded by The Hon. Wellzi MP
Protection of Minors from Propaganda Promoting Non-traditional Sexual Relationships Bill
A
BILL
TO


Protect minors from information advocating for a denial of traditional family values by prohibiting propaganda promoting non-traditional sexual relationships to minors.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1) Definitions
(a) “Minors” refer to humans under the age of eighteen.
(b) “Propaganda promoting non-traditional sexual relationships” refers to materials that are aimed at causing minors to form non-traditional sexual predispositions, notions of attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships, distorted ideas about the equal social value of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or imposing information about non-traditional sexual relationships which raises interest in such relationships, where non-traditional sexual relationships include paedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia.
(c) “Public official” refers to a person engaged in, but not limited to, the provision of a public service or an individual in a position of official authority that is conferred by the state, whether appointed or elected.

2) Propaganda promoting non-traditional sexual relationships to minors
(1) Individuals, organisations, and businesses may not use propaganda promoting non-traditional sexual relationships to minors.

3) Consequences of violation
Individual offenders who are British citizens may receive fines of up to £5000.
(2) Offenders who are public officials may receive fines of up to £50,000 and may face up to three months imprisonment.
(3) Organisations or businesses that use propaganda promoting non-traditional sexual relationships to minors may be fined up to £1,000,000 and may be prohibited from operating for up to 90 days.
(4) Foreign offenders may be arrested for up to 15 days before being deported and/or fined up to £10,000 before being deported.

4) Short title, commencement and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Protection of Minors from Propaganda Promoting Non-traditional Sexual Relationships Act 2015.
(2) This Act comes into effect 14 days after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act extends to Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


Speaker's Note: Please note the full bill name is longer than the thread title.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Is this the United Kingdom or the Russian Federation? :unimpressed:

I'll be voting No and have little more to contribute to the debate. :flybye:

EDIT: Upon closer inspection, this isn't what I thought it was. Will probably still vote No due to vagueness.
1
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
1(b) is included, but not limited to, I presume.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's one thing to allow something let's say unusual to adults but another thing to impose gender propaganda upon children. If I had a child myself, I wouldn't allow the school to use learning materials depicting e.g. homosexual partners as parents in situations that aren't related to sexual education, e.g. in primers or reading books.

Also, guys, this is where a short title should be used properly.
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Life_peer)
1(b) is included, but not limited to, I presume.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's one thing to allow something let's say unusual to adults but another thing to impose gender propaganda upon children. If I had a child myself, I wouldn't allow the school to use learning materials depicting e.g. homosexual partners as parents in situations that aren't related to sexual education, e.g. in primers or reading books.
The fact that there's this ambiguity makes this unacceptable as a bill. See my post. You can't have 'non-traditional' as a banning criteria then not define it.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by RayApparently)
The fact that there's this ambiguity makes this unacceptable as a bill. See my post. You can't have 'non-traditional' as a banning criteria then not define it.
Yeah, I understand what you mean. Probably another case of UKIP trying to slip under the radar.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Life_peer)
Yeah, I understand what you mean. Probably another case of UKIP trying to slip under the radar.
I'm getting tired of these Kipper tactics. Dishonest manifestos, dishonest bills. There comes a point where if you need to deceive that much to push forward a policy just dump the policy. It's insulting to our intelligence otherwise.

The wording for 1.b is dodgy even without the potential (deliberate?) omission. "Aimed at"? Surely its a simple thing to argue that your bestiality poster wasn't aimed at encouraging anything - perhaps it was there for decorative purposes?

Its laughable that 'foreign offenders' - which I assume is just foreign nationals get deported and a fine double the size. UKIP really can't help themselves.

And will the local corner shop be subject to this £1 million fine?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
UKIP members continuing their reign of terror, I see not problem though with forcing everybody back to missionary
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
This bill should just be withdrawn now, it's unsalvageable.
0
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
You do realise relationships with minors, whilst obviously wrong, are very 'traditional'? Cf. the age of consent across British history.

So you need to add a definition or change the wording.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
You do realise relationships with minors, whilst obviously wrong, are very 'traditional'? Cf. the age of consent across British history.

So you need to add a definition or change the wording.
It is already defined in the bill that non-traditional sexual relationships include paedophilia in this context.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Nay. Interesting to see this is authored by the UKIP DL and Chair but isn't a party bill. Lack of support or is that an error?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username1899909
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
UKIP members continuing their reign of terror, I see not problem though with forcing everybody back to missionary
What do you mean by " missionary" because I can think of 2 definition
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by PetrosAC)
Nay. Interesting to see this is authored by the UKIP DL and Chair but isn't a party bill. Lack of support or is that an error?

Posted from TSR Mobile
This bill is authored by the DL and seconded by the Chairman. This bill has nothing to do with UKIP and was never intended to be a UKIP bill.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Unown Uzer)
This bill is authored by the DL and seconded by the Chairman. This bill has nothing to do with UKIP and was never intended to be a UKIP bill.
Okie dokie. Thanks for the clarification.

The bill, especially 1b is quite vague, but it'd be a Nay regardless

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by RayApparently)
I'm getting tired of these Kipper tactics. Dishonest manifestos, dishonest bills. There comes a point where if you need to deceive that much to push forward a policy just dump the policy. It's insulting to our intelligence otherwise.

The wording for 1.b is dodgy even without the potential (deliberate?) omission. "Aimed at"? Surely its a simple thing to argue that your bestiality poster wasn't aimed at encouraging anything - perhaps it was there for decorative purposes?

Its laughable that 'foreign offenders' - which I assume is just foreign nationals get deported and a fine double the size. UKIP really can't help themselves.

And will the local corner shop be subject to this £1 million fine?
(Original post by Life_peer)
Yeah, I understand what you mean. Probably another case of UKIP trying to slip under the radar.
This is a PMB and has nothing do with UKIP.
0
Imperion
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
That 1b though...
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
If you amend s1(b) to 'including and limited to' then you have my vote.

Edit: I didn't see the discriminatory penalties. Pretty sure those are illegal.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Nay.
0
emiloujess
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
Nay.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by RayApparently)
Is this the United Kingdom or the Russian Federation? :unimpressed:

I'll be voting No and have little more to contribute to the debate. :flybye:

EDIT: Upon closer inspection, this isn't what I thought it was. Will probably still vote No due to vagueness.
RACIST! What's wrong with the Russian Federation? I thought you lot love multiculturalism, yet when I try to introduce some French culture with the Face Coverings Prohibition Bill and some Russian culture with this bill, you aren't so accepting of these cultures, are you? Or does multiculturalism only apply to the culture of a certain demographic that largely votes Labour?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (409)
67.6%
No (196)
32.4%

Watched Threads

View All