NationStates

"The amendments to clause 5 certainly are an improvement over its initial state, but the contents of Article 5(a)(ii) are still likely to be abused by member states, even if such abuse would be limited thanks to the voluntary implementation of such actions."

OOC: I have submitted this.

Approved.

Well, you're certainly in a hurry.

Wallenburg wrote:Well, you're certainly in a hurry.

The replacement was needed immediately.

OOC:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Approved.

Thank you, IA \o/

Wallenburg wrote:Well, you're certainly in a hurry.

Given the passage of the GA#27 repeal, as well as the existence of a competing replacement draft with differing policy goals, we thought it advisable to minimise the wait between repeal and submission.

Maowi wrote:OOC:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Approved.

Thank you, IA \o/

Wallenburg wrote:Well, you're certainly in a hurry.

Given the passage of the GA#27 repeal, as well as the existence of a competing replacement draft with differing policy goals, we thought it advisable to minimise the wait between repeal and submission.

Perhaps you should have waited until a replacement was ready to attempt a repeal.

Wallenburg wrote:Perhaps you should have waited until a replacement was ready to attempt a repeal.

The replacement is ready and was submitted?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Perhaps you should have waited until a replacement was ready to attempt a repeal.

The replacement is ready and was submitted?

You misunderstand. I mean that the repeal should not have been submitted until this too was prepared for submission, if the author so genuinely abhors an intermission from repeal to replacement. The replacement quite unquestionably was not ready for submission, since edits were made to it through the repeal's approval period and through its voting period.

If you wish to discuss the replacement's current readiness, however, I will do so. Clause 3.b remains a considerable problem, a weak point by which member states may comply with clause 1 as it is written but not as the author desires.

OOC:

Wallenburg wrote:You misunderstand. I mean that the repeal should not have been submitted until this too was prepared for submission, if the author so genuinely abhors an intermission from repeal to replacement. The replacement quite unquestionably was not ready for submission, since edits were made to it through the repeal's approval period and through its voting period.

The last edit I made to this was on February 3, once the repeal was already well into its voting period, because as I imagine you might potentially know from experience, you get a lot more comments on things after submission than before submission, and so luckily I was still able to make those edits. The last edit before that was January 23, after a lot of bumping of the thread. I don't think this was an unreasonable timeline.

If you wish to discuss the replacement's current readiness, however, I will do so. Clause 3.b remains a considerable problem, a weak point by which member states may comply with clause 1 as it is written but not as the author desires.

How so - do you not believe clause 4 addresses the issue?

Because it allows states with very strict laws re speech to allow for the assembly but not to allow for any particular speech to be expressed in it. A state which banned 'outdoor shouting would still be able to enforce that ban. This proposal is not ready for the voting floor and I can't help but feel that it was rushed to be submitted because another proposal on this issue was submitted and you wanted to have the replacement.

"Does clause 2 not prohibit private entities from removing trespassers if they claim to be participating in a 'non-violent assembly'? If that is not changed, Germany will not be voting for this replacement."

Marxist Germany wrote:"Does clause 2 not prohibit private entities from removing trespassers if they claim to be participating in a 'non-violent assembly'? If that is not changed, Germany will not be voting for this replacement."

"To my knowledge, it does indeed prohibit private entities from doing so."

CoraSpia wrote:Because it allows states with very strict laws re speech to allow for the assembly but not to allow for any particular speech to be expressed in it. A state which banned 'outdoor shouting would still be able to enforce that ban. This proposal is not ready for the voting floor and I can't help but feel that it was rushed to be submitted because another proposal on this issue was submitted and you wanted to have the replacement.

OOC: The WA has laws in place guaranteeing the right to free expression. Member states may not hinder this right except for the imposition of reasonable restrictions in a variety of clearly delineated situations.

Marxist Germany wrote:"Does clause 2 not prohibit private entities from removing trespassers if they claim to be participating in a 'non-violent assembly'? If that is not changed, Germany will not be voting for this replacement."

"If trespassing is unlawful in Germany, private entities may act to curtail the trespassing, as per 3.b. of this proposal. I hope that clarifies the matter."

Maowi wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"Does clause 2 not prohibit private entities from removing trespassers if they claim to be participating in a 'non-violent assembly'? If that is not changed, Germany will not be voting for this replacement."

"If trespassing is unlawful in Germany, private entities may act to curtail the trespassing, as per 3.b. of this proposal. I hope that clarifies the matter."

"Thank you for the clarification. Consider my previous opposition rescinded."

OOC: This is now at vote.

Hexxon votes FOR the "Right to Assemble" proposal.

This was a fairly easy vote. At first I was worried that it didn't have sufficient support but now I'm more willing to cast my vote in favor of this proposal.

"The Havenic delegation will be voting against this proposal as there is a superior replacement for GAR27 in the queue."

The North Pacific Ministry of World Assembly Affairs will be recommending a vote For this proposal. Further information can be found in our IFV here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1503406

While the issue at hand is great, it does nothing to help the case of a global pandemic or extremists banding together to fight the government or a different group. If history tells us one thing is that nothing is perfect, but we should try to fill those holes in a documents, otherwise we will get something like 2020 and early 2021 in America. So I plan to be against this issue until something more solid comes along.



Yes I'm in hell, so what?

Draconic Aiur wrote:While the issue at hand is great, it does nothing to help the case of a global pandemic or extremists banding together to fight the government or a different group. If history tells us one thing is that nothing is perfect, but we should try to fill those holes in a documents, otherwise we will get something like 2020 and early 2021 in America. So I plan to be against this issue until something more solid comes along.



Yes I'm in hell, so what?

I would have to disagree with my esteemed colleague from Draconic Alur. After studying the resolution at hand, the delegation from Alpha Carinae feels that it adequately addresses the needs mentioned by our colleague. "Harmful activities" are clearly defined in the proposal and we feel that this would answer the concern of extremist activities. In terms of a global pandemic, we feel that there are perhaps more effective ways to address those needs elsewhere, even if in a different resolution.

Alpha Carinae votes in favor of the resolution.

Pax,
Sir Francis Walker
Ambassador to the World Assembly from Alpha Carinae

"The Grand Council of Jutsa firmly applauds this proposal, and has voted FOR. However, there's one caveat they wish to have addressed.

Both clauses 1 and 2 state this at the end - which is a good addition, in their opinion.

unless doing so is the [most proportionate/least restrictive] way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.

Clause 3c adds this to 3's definition of harmful activities, which is also accepted by the Grand Council as a good addition.

the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.

There's just one issue with this: what happens if the member state simply makes it an unlawful action to protest?
Sure, this resolution essentially makes it illegal to make it illegal... but with the caveat that if it's illegal, then it would be legal?
Or - pardon my jibberish - even though the point of the resolution is to make it an inalienable right to assembly,
wouldn't simply making such practices illegal in the first place mean that sections 1 and 2 automatically are made null and void by clause 3c?"

Jutsa wrote:"The Grand Council of Jutsa firmly applauds this proposal, and has voted FOR. However, there's one caveat they wish to have addressed.

Both clauses 1 and 2 state this at the end - which is a good addition, in their opinion.

unless doing so is the [most proportionate/least restrictive] way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.

Clause 3c adds this to 3's definition of harmful activities, which is also accepted by the Grand Council as a good addition.

the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.

There's just one issue with this: what happens if the member state simply makes it an unlawful action to protest?
Sure, this resolution essentially makes it illegal to make it illegal... but with the caveat that if it's illegal, then it would be legal?
Or - pardon my jibberish - even though the point of the resolution is to make it an inalienable right to assembly,
wouldn't simply making such practices illegal in the first place mean that sections 1 and 2 automatically are made null and void by clause 3c?"

"Or if the member state made it illegal to do certain things that are extremely common at lawful assemblies, such as to chant slogans, to hold signs, to raise ones voice etc."

"I'd like to believe in a good-faith argument against this worry, but we've seen proposals repealed for reasons like this,
and this is something big enough that, unless it's already protected by an existing or shall be protected by a future resolution,
The Council would like other opinions on whether it's simply misinterpreting this, or if this is really as big a loophole as they - and I - thought."

Jutsa wrote:"I'd like to believe in a good-faith argument against this worry, but we've seen proposals repealed for reasons like this,
and this is something big enough that, unless it's already protected by an existing or shall be protected by a future resolution,
The Council would like other opinions on whether it's simply misinterpreting this, or if this is really as big a loophole as they - and I - thought."

"Thank you very much for your support, ambassador. We were indeed aware of the possibility of this issue arising during the drafting process, and sought to address it via clause 4, which affirms that the act itself of assembling is not to be considered unlawful. I hope this clarifies the issue."