NationStates

member states must deny the rights granted to individuals by this resolution [...]

This is very wordy and it doesn't actually do what I think authors intend it to do. Right to assembly isn't granted by WA law alone, it can also be granted by national law. Thus, the nations could deny people the right under the resolution, but still grant it in their national law.

I would simplify it to:

Member states must forbid non-violent assemblies and associations that have the purpose of advocating, whether by action or inaction, for:
a. ...
b. ...
- such assemblies and associations may not be construed as protected by this resolution.

Or something like that.

Good luck!

Paul Incorporated wrote:

member states must deny the rights granted to individuals by this resolution [...]

This is very wordy and it doesn't actually do what I think authors intend it to do. Right to assembly isn't granted by WA law alone, it can also be granted by national law. Thus, the nations could deny people the right under the resolution, but still grant it in their national law.

I would simplify it to:

Member states must forbid non-violent assemblies and associations that have the purpose of advocating, whether by action or inaction, for:
a. ...
b. ...
- such assemblies and associations may not be construed as protected by this resolution.

Or something like that.

Good luck!

OOC: Thank you very much for the suggestion, it is a good point. I have updated the language in the draft hopefully improved phrasing, and have also made a few other changes mostly to streamline clauses and improve clarity as suggested to me by IA.

Bananaistan wrote:"Belief seems incredibly weak compared to "any goal, cause, or view" and assembly is weak compared to "peacefully assemble, associate, and protest". Freedom of association is the more important part of the resolution you wish to replace with this.

"Why only private property in 3b? One should not be entitled to hold a protest on the runway at the airport, the overtaking lane on the M3 at rush hour, or inside the spaceship hanger at Area 51.

"I would suspect that most reasonable governments would not permit protestors to rock up to, demand entry and be granted it to protest on the floor of parliament. Or to block the route of a foreign leader during a controversial state visit. Reasonable security should be allowed for.

"It will be interesting to see what sort of document will remain by the time everyone's reasonable exceptions are accounted for. I suspect it won't provide much protection for freedom of assembly at all."

"I note this circle has not been squared. The draft at hand states that member states can restrict freedom of assembly in respect of unlawful action. Reasonable member states might well use to stop people from bringing the M3 to a halt at rush hour and also keep all protesting well away, like three towns over, from key government buildings."

"Aside our shared concern with the delegation of Bananaistan, the Imperium sees no significant flaw in this draft. We look forward to submission."

Bananaistan wrote:"I note this circle has not been squared. The draft at hand states that member states can restrict freedom of assembly in respect of unlawful action. Reasonable member states might well use to stop people from bringing the M3 to a halt at rush hour and also keep all protesting well away, like three towns over, from key government buildings."

"While I understand your concern, it does not seem unreasonable to me for a member state wishing to avoid obstruction of traffic to do so by making obstruction of traffic unlawful - in fact, that is quite a common practice in many of the nations I know of ... likewise, I think it reasonable to have certain restrictions in place in law regarding unauthorised public access to important government buildings, and if a protest really is likely to end up entering one such building, clause 3.c. would permit measures such as keeping the protestors sufficiently far away."

OOC: I wasn't 100% sure if I was correctly interpreting your point there, so apologies if not - what kind of addition did you think would be suitable to make, some specific exceptions for situations like those you describe?

Maowi wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:"I note this circle has not been squared. The draft at hand states that member states can restrict freedom of assembly in respect of unlawful action. Reasonable member states might well use to stop people from bringing the M3 to a halt at rush hour and also keep all protesting well away, like three towns over, from key government buildings."

"While I understand your concern, it does not seem unreasonable to me for a member state wishing to avoid obstruction of traffic to do so by making obstruction of traffic unlawful - in fact, that is quite a common practice in many of the nations I know of ... likewise, I think it reasonable to have certain restrictions in place in law regarding unauthorised public access to important government buildings, and if a protest really is likely to end up entering one such building, clause 3.c. would permit measures such as keeping the protestors sufficiently far away."

OOC: I wasn't 100% sure if I was correctly interpreting your point there, so apologies if not - what kind of addition did you think would be suitable to make, some specific exceptions for situations like those you describe?

OOC: Tbf I wasn't very clear there. What I mean is that "unlawful action" can be the protest or assembly itself due to its location. So a reasonable member state might take the view that, say, obstructing legislators from attending parliament and the general public from going about its business is unlawful and could prohibit all protests anywhere in the capital.

The unlawful exception is a necessary exemption but it effectively guts the whole thing. I don't immediately see how this can be resolved.

Bananaistan wrote:What I mean is that "unlawful action" can be the protest or assembly itself due to its location

There's a fix for that. Take this, from the other draft, for instance:

1. Prohibits member states and private entities within these member states from:
   
   1. Criminalizing or prohibiting the acts of engaging in, abetting, and organizing any peaceful assembly for the purposes of advocating any cause, ideology, or allegiance in any public space,

That last part works very well to curtail the later "unlawful" exemption from being utilized in such a manner. I believe something to that effect should be added to this draft to diminish the negative consequences of the "unlawful" exemption.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:What I mean is that "unlawful action" can be the protest or assembly itself due to its location

There's a fix for that. Take this, from the other draft, for instance:

1. Prohibits member states and private entities within these member states from:
   
   1. Criminalizing or prohibiting the acts of engaging in, abetting, and organizing any peaceful assembly for the purposes of advocating any cause, ideology, or allegiance in any public space,

That last part works very well to curtail the later "unlawful" exemption from being utilized in such a manner. I believe something to that effect should be added to this draft to diminish the negative consequences of the "unlawful" exemption.

OOC: What's a public space? Wiki seems to think it includes roads so you'd be back to allowing every crank with a chop on their shoulders clog up traffic whenever they feel like it.

Bananaistan wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:There's a fix for that. Take this, from the other draft, for instance:

1. Prohibits member states and private entities within these member states from:
   
   1. Criminalizing or prohibiting the acts of engaging in, abetting, and organizing any peaceful assembly for the purposes of advocating any cause, ideology, or allegiance in any public space,

That last part works very well to curtail the later "unlawful" exemption from being utilized in such a manner. I believe something to that effect should be added to this draft to diminish the negative consequences of the "unlawful" exemption.

OOC: What's a public space? Wiki seems to think it includes roads so you'd be back to allowing every crank with a chop on their shoulders clog up traffic whenever they feel like it.

OOC: Regarding roads, member states may not restrict protests on the basis of location, but based on other factors such as traffic obstruction, which is considered unlawful in most jurisdictions. Thus, demonstrators could hold up signs on sidewalks or pedestrian islands, but wouldn't be permitted to obstruct vehicles from using roads. If the road wasn't being used for vehicle traffic, though, then one would have the right to protest on the roadway itself.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Tbf I wasn't very clear there. What I mean is that "unlawful action" can be the protest or assembly itself due to its location. So a reasonable member state might take the view that, say, obstructing legislators from attending parliament and the general public from going about its business is unlawful and could prohibit all protests anywhere in the capital.

The unlawful exception is a necessary exemption but it effectively guts the whole thing. I don't immediately see how this can be resolved.

OOC: Ah okay, I see what you mean. The intention was for 4.b. to deal with that - e.g. if member states have traffic obstruction banned, then they can stop protesters from blocking up the M3, but I doubt they would have a law against just hanging around on the pavement, so people would have to be permitted to protest on the pavement. Likewise, I don't think member states would have laws against walking around the capital city, so they would have to permit people to protest in the capital city unless, as per clause 3.c., they were trying to flood into government buildings etc.

Whatever you do don't do 'forum analysis'. It's a waste of everyone's time. See 594 F3d 719 (7th Cir, 2009).

OOC: We've updated the language slightly. Since clause 1 prevents member states from taking "punitive action" against people for taking part in non-violent assembly etc., and the exception to that was clause 3 which in its earlier form (Draft 6) only allowed "the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing" one of the specific situations listed, I thought that could make prosecution/sentencing difficult in cases where it needs to happen, so we thought that more appropriate language would be "the most proportionate way of responding to" those situations. But in terms of acting contrary to clause 2, the least restrictive option is still the most appropriate. So we moved some of the clause 3 language up to clauses 1 and 2, so that we could separate it out.

Still hoping to submit this immediately after the repeal, should it pass :)

OOC: Bump - would love to get feedback on the very latest version.

Curiously this replacement doesn't really solve the problems outlined in the current repeal at vote, which are the liberal and broad definition of "harm", the broad category of individuals accorded rights to free assembly extending to criminals, and the problem of protests "blocking the route of emergency vehicles".

Feyrisshire wrote:Curiously this replacement doesn't really solve the problems outlined in the current repeal at vote, which are the liberal and broad definition of "harm", the broad category of individuals accorded rights to free assembly extending to criminals, and the problem of protests "blocking the route of emergency vehicles".

OOC: The term "harm" is never used in this draft, save for the phrase "harmful activities," for which a clear-cut definition is provided inside the proposal (hopefully? if you have specific feedback as to how that could be improved that would be wonderful).

The problem with GA#27 re: giving criminals the right to freely assemble becomes clear from looking at its language:

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.

We tried to address this by being careful with our own language - clause 1 stop member states from taking punitive action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating ... etc. (i.e. as opposed to simply stopping them from taking punitive action against any individual planning etc., which would create a similar loophole to that in GA#27 about criminals trying to evade justice). Furthermore, the exception for "unlawful action" in 3.b. makes it possible for law enforcement to intervene when criminals are involved if necessary.

Likewise, that exception would permit the clearing of emergency services' path if a protest is blocking it/would block it. It is commonplace for the obstruction of emergency services to be a crime IRL, or even just the obstruction of traffic in general.

"Ambassador, I have read your proposal rather thoroughly and have been keen to support the repeal of the proposal that you are attempting to replace here. I am however unable to support this replacement as it forces obligations on the Havenic government that directly contradict our longheld belief in freedom of speech.
I cannot stress enough that those calling for my death personally are highly unpleasant people, and if such exist I would really like them to stop. Even if the full power of the Havenic government was behind me however I would have no means to force them to stop, nor would I wish to have such power. The Havenic constitution clearly states that any Havenic resident, citizen or non-citizen, is free to speak his or her mind and to assemble with others who share that view whether peacefully or as the case my be in force. It does not distinguish between those beliefs that we may find distasteful nor does it even allow any redress by those who feel they have been the victims of defamatory speech. I must also add that my homeland permits anybody to reside within its borders, including some individuals who have been silenced by less tolerant states. This proposal may lead them to feel unwelcome in their adoptive homeland if our government is forced to comply with it.

CoraSpia wrote:"Ambassador, I have read your proposal rather thoroughly and have been keen to support the repeal of the proposal that you are attempting to replace here. I am however unable to support this replacement as it forces obligations on the Havenic government that directly contradict our longheld belief in freedom of speech.
I cannot stress enough that those calling for my death personally are highly unpleasant people, and if such exist I would really like them to stop. Even if the full power of the Havenic government was behind me however I would have no means to force them to stop, nor would I wish to have such power. The Havenic constitution clearly states that any Havenic resident, citizen or non-citizen, is free to speak his or her mind and to assemble with others who share that view whether peacefully or as the case my be in force. It does not distinguish between those beliefs that we may find distasteful nor does it even allow any redress by those who feel they have been the victims of defamatory speech. I must also add that my homeland permits anybody to reside within its borders, including some individuals who have been silenced by less tolerant states. This proposal may lead them to feel unwelcome in their adoptive homeland if our government is forced to comply with it.

"Thank you very much for voicing your feedback, ambassador. I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint; calls for a person's death or for other violence towards them - especially in public - are incredibly dangerous to their safety and health and I do not believe this should be tolerated, nor given a public platform. I would however note that while this proposal would implement certain restrictions on assembly based on what is being advocated, in order to minimise the momentum behind such calls that threaten the safety of others, this proposal would not curtail individuals' freedom to express those views more generally."

While we appreciate that we may simply have to agree to disagree with the ambassador from Maowi, we would also be significantly more comfortable with this draft proposal if clause 5 were made optional rather than mandatory ("may" rather than "must").

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchia WA Ambassador

Maowi wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:"Ambassador, I have read your proposal rather thoroughly and have been keen to support the repeal of the proposal that you are attempting to replace here. I am however unable to support this replacement as it forces obligations on the Havenic government that directly contradict our longheld belief in freedom of speech.
I cannot stress enough that those calling for my death personally are highly unpleasant people, and if such exist I would really like them to stop. Even if the full power of the Havenic government was behind me however I would have no means to force them to stop, nor would I wish to have such power. The Havenic constitution clearly states that any Havenic resident, citizen or non-citizen, is free to speak his or her mind and to assemble with others who share that view whether peacefully or as the case my be in force. It does not distinguish between those beliefs that we may find distasteful nor does it even allow any redress by those who feel they have been the victims of defamatory speech. I must also add that my homeland permits anybody to reside within its borders, including some individuals who have been silenced by less tolerant states. This proposal may lead them to feel unwelcome in their adoptive homeland if our government is forced to comply with it.

"Thank you very much for voicing your feedback, ambassador. I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint; calls for a person's death or for other violence towards them - especially in public - are incredibly dangerous to their safety and health and I do not believe this should be tolerated, nor given a public platform. I would however note that while this proposal would implement certain restrictions on assembly based on what is being advocated, in order to minimise the momentum behind such calls that threaten the safety of others, this proposal would not curtail individuals' freedom to express those views more generally."

"Ambassador. I am not going to patronise your response further than by acknowledging that to have risen to the position you now occupy you are surely familiar with how the real world works. Preventing a person or groups ability to assemble based on the ideas that they advocate has a major negative impact on their ability to successfully advocate, and risks reducing their public exposure. The haven believes in the right of every political organisation to receive equal treatment under the law, regardless of the positions that they advocate. I second the calls from the honourable representative from goobergunchia to change the language from 'may' to 'must,' in order to allow those nations which respect an absolute right to freedom of assembly to continue to afford their citizens this right."

3.b is a massive backdoor for states to declare assemblies "unlawful action".

Clause 5 runs into problems when subgroups of assemblies and associations do these things and other subgroups do not. How is the "purpose" of the action determined in real time when the motivations of individuals within the greater body are varied, and when the very makeup of the assembly or association may change at any given moment?

"In response to the objections raised by the ambassadors from CoraSpia and Goobergunchia respectively, I have updated the proposal language so that clause 5 is optional for member states; however, I have added a requirement that member states declining to take action as described in clause 5 must protect those targeted by the actions listed. While I still firmly believe that member states should prioritise the prevention of immediate danger to their citizens, I accept that the inflexibility of the previous version of clause 5 could have caused problems in certain situations - I am hopeful that this latest version resolves the issue."

OOC:

Wallenburg wrote:3.b is a massive backdoor for states to declare assemblies "unlawful action".

This is what I attempted to address in clause 4, which prevents member states from doing exactly that - do you believe it doesn't work as intended?

Clause 5 runs into problems when subgroups of assemblies and associations do these things and other subgroups do not. How is the "purpose" of the action determined in real time when the motivations of individuals within the greater body are varied, and when the very makeup of the assembly or association may change at any given moment?

In this new version of clause 5 I have modified the language so that intervention in assembly and association would be geared towards specifically addressing the act of advocating for the listed actions/inactions, rather than banning the entire assembly outright - I hope that helps.

It's getting rather byzantine, but that does seem like an improvement.

One issue I have is when you say "unlawful," you aren't clear as to whether you mean against national law or international law. That would be a big loophole that governments can exploit. Maybe define what "unlawful" means for the purposes of the resolution.

We thank the ambassador from Maowi for their amendment, and can live with the new version of clause 5.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchia WA Ambassador

Canlonia wrote:One issue I have is when you say "unlawful," you aren't clear as to whether you mean against national law or international law. That would be a big loophole that governments can exploit. Maybe define what "unlawful" means for the purposes of the resolution.

OOC: My intention is for both national law and WA law to apply. I think I understand what you're getting at but I'm not really sure it needs further clarification - member states must implement WA mandates in their own national law anyway, so I think the desired effect is already there with the current wording.

Goobergunchia wrote:We thank the ambassador from Maowi for their amendment, and can live with the new version of clause 5.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchia WA Ambassador

"I am glad the new wording is more favourable to you - thank you for the suggestion."