This House Supports Drone Warfare

 

drone

The 13th Ordinary meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 6th of
February in the Senate Room.

Alex Horkan and Ryan Jones supported the motion! Horkan argued that no weapon can be said to be used ethically but that war is inevitable so drone warfare must be considered. While warfare should be a last resort, drones allow better and more informed decisions when it comes about. Ryan Jones continued saying he hearts drones. There were some memorable quotes *cough* ‘whether your beliefs are communism, fascism or feminism’ *cough*.He said that like all advances in warfare, drones are necessary as it’s not about how many men you have in war but about how advanced your weapons are.

Henry Adams and James McAlister took the floor in opposition! Adams compared the cause and effect of the situation.  He argued that staying silent about the use of drones and having a lack of transparency would result in dangerous consequences due to an indifference to casualties. McAlister closed the debate. He told the House that it is just a way of allowing the government to make a kill list and carry out secret executions instead of giving trials and that it could escalate to a point where there is a disregard for human life.

We then went to the floor, a vote and the motion passed.

This House Doesn’t Mind Being Watched

watched

The 4th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 24th of October in the Senate Room.

The motion was This House Doesn’t Mind Being Watched.

Ms Evie Netto and Mr Ryan Jones sided with the proposition. Ms Netto argued that safety is a human right that should be taken just as seriously as freedom. She told the House that government surveillance has saved lives and that CCTV is nothing to fear. Mr Jones rationalised that so much of what we do is already in the public domain and that we should take the extra step to allowing government surveillance for our own safety.

Mr George Martin and Mr Henry Adams took to the floor in opposition. Mr Martin explained that he no longer trusts the government and that hem having all our information leaves us in a position to be dominated. He stated if we passed the motion there would be no way to take back our privacy. Mr Henry Adams closed the debate for the opposition. He countered that we shouldn’t be okay with surveillance just because it’s legal as there are many bad laws. He explained that the fact surveillance can be misused and abused is enough reason to not allow it.

Questions were waved and the motion went to a vote.
The motion was defeated.