[PASSED] Freedom of Association

[Hulldom]

Member nations may not ban, blacklist, or impose legal penalties for affiliation with any organization that does not spread a message of violence or hate or that intends to undertake a crime against another person's life or well-being or private or state-owned property.

I still think you need to pick your words carefully here. It's open to the interpretation that nations can't ban an organisation (a) that doesn't spread a message of hate or (b) that intends a crime. It would be clearer to put a "not" in both (a) and (b) or be more clear that the initial "not" applies to both clauses.

And seriously, what's the rush to submit? I don't mean this in an overly critical way but if in a short period you've been shown 3 things that make you say "good catch" you're not 24 hours from submission.

And read the above where I’m putting it off for a few days.

As for that quibble, I don’t necessarily agree. I think that language is fine as is.

[Maowi]

OOC: Could clause 2 be read in such a way as to force organisations to allow any citizen of a member state to affiliate with them? I could potentially see some member states exploiting that, if it is indeed a valid reading, in situations in which it is advantageous to them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Could clause 2 be read in such a way as to force organisations to allow any citizen of a member state to affiliate with them? I could potentially see some member states exploiting that, if it is indeed a valid reading, in situations in which it is advantageous to them.

Given that it says:

Citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing.

I concur with Maowi. A plain reading would open up this concern.

[Hulldom]

OOC: Could clause 2 be read in such a way as to force organisations to allow any citizen of a member state to affiliate with them? I could potentially see some member states exploiting that, if it is indeed a valid reading, in situations in which it is advantageous to them.

Given that it says:

Citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing.

I concur with Maowi. A plain reading would open up this concern.

I think the only way to go with that would be to add "provided the organization allows them membership" which will at least allow for some "club" organisations.

[Boston Castle]

Moving this to temporarily back to draft status. Big changes in the last few days, think it's sensible to wait till end of next week to move on this.

Will probably move this back to last call on Tuesday or so pending IA, Maowi, and Uan aa Boa's comments on the changes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'll be honest, you can't move this quickly on a draft like this unless you've done a ton of research into how freedom of association law is itself written. I would go back to research to find a better-suited policy before moving to implementation.

[Boston Castle]

Bump.

OOC: I'd discussed IA's above comment with him on Saturday night. We disagree on the fundamental issue at play and frankly, I do not think he is right on this issue. He believes that this is an issue founded in civil law. I raise the history of freedom of association law which has primarily dealt with criminal complaints and issues and indeed, states (in the broadest sense, both nation-states and subnational units in the American sense) have criminalized membership in organizations even as they have abrogated the civil rights of those whose membership is in certain organizations!

(For further note on criminalization of membership in certain organizations See: the Communist Control Act of 1954-which essentially criminalizes* membership in the Communist Party in the United States, Communist Party USA v. Catherwood in which SCOTUS held that membership of the Communist Party was not enough to deny a business owner the tax privileges which other businesses were able to avail themselves of, and Sections 84-86 of the German Criminal Code which explicitly gives to the state the power to ban an organization and to criminalize membership in a banned organization.

For further note on abrogation of civil rights, see Section 841 of Title 50 of US Code-the Internal Security Act (1950) and the following section of the same law as well as repealed notices and the US District Court of Arizona's findings in Blawis v. Bolin (1973) in which the Court found that prior communist control statutes did not grant the state of Arizona the right to abrogate an organization's ability to be on an election ballot and that that was indeed unconstitutional: "Eliminating the association for political purposes of an entire group of people is an action surpassing even that in Williams v. Rhodes, supra, where access to the ballot by an organization was merely proscribed by unconstitutional requirements.")

*Thanks to Tin for pointing this out, though I did discover this earlier myself. That statute has never been repealed, so theoretically, the US Government could still come after the Communist Party-even though it never has actually enforced those provisions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I'd discussed IA's above comment with him on Saturday night. We disagree on the fundamental issue at play and frankly, I do not think he is right on this issue. He believes that this is an issue founded in civil law.

No, you said:

It is, but we do require due process in criminal law. So it's a matter of figuring out civil law
Which might run into ideological ban trouble imo.

I viewed this as some kind of attempt as to expand some association right to private contracts: eg creating a private right of action against those which violate it or prohibiting contracts from taking such actions in the first place (ie a change in the law of civilians, ie private law). To that suggestion, I responded:

There isn't any grounds for government to regulate contracts freely entered which restrict association
If I'm your uncle and I were to give you 100 dollars not to be friends with the biker gang at the high school, why should the government intervene
For the government to intervene in someone who contracts not to associate with someone would itself be a violation of the right to associate with the contract counterparty
That's why basically all the freedom of association stuff talks about government action to outlaw membership in or the existence of some organisation

...

I'm confused as to why you believe freedom of association must include an affirmative right for someone to associate with anyone they want even if the person they want to associate with doesn't want anything to do with them

These lines imply to me that I was befuddled as to why you wanted to impose a change in the civil law of contracts to have government proscribe certain terms which may prevent a person from associating with another person when they freely enter into such terms. What I told you was that a government intervention on that topic would be unwarranted. At the broadest level, my position is composed of four general contentions:

1. Contracts freely entered into which bar someone from associating with someone else should not be regulated by the government.
2. Almost all legislation currently deals with government action which bars people from associating.
3. Your proposal prevents not only the government from barring association, but also private contracts from doing so. (You mentioned in chat later that clause 2 was stricken for this reason.)
4. Government bans on private contracts which bar certain associations are itself violations of the right to association.

Government intervention in a private freedom not to associate would be unwarranted under contentions 1 and 4. It is relevant because of contention 3. And present practice – which seems to be what you are concerned with in the post above – contradicts your position: contention 2. Your response below is merely a re-assertion of what I said, that 'basically all the freedom of association stuff talks about government action to outlaw membership in or the existence of some organisation'. It is not contradictory with my contention 2; in fact, providing evidence of the past criminalisation of association supports that claim.

I raise the history of freedom of association law which has primarily dealt with criminal complaints and issues and indeed, states (in the broadest sense, both nation-states and subnational units in the American sense) have criminalized membership in organizations even as they have abrogated the civil rights of those whose membership is in certain organizations!

(For further note on criminalization of membership in certain organizations See: the Communist Control Act of 1954-which essentially criminalizes* membership in the Communist Party in the United States, Communist Party USA v. Catherwood in which SCOTUS held that membership of the Communist Party was not enough to deny a business owner the tax privileges which other businesses were able to avail themselves of, and Sections 84-86 of the German Criminal Code which explicitly gives to the state the power to ban an organization and to criminalize membership in a banned organization.

What I was then confused with was what civil law has to do with this topic in any way. And what I am now confused with is how you somehow entirely reversed my position on the topic.

How what I spoke of got turned into either (1) a question which has to do with Continental law (civil law) or (2) a question having to do with private law, I have no idea. It isn't as if the Continent doesn't have right of association. The European Convention on Human Rights has it right there. It isn't as if I am telling you that you need to regulate private contracts: I told you the exact opposite multiple times.

[Boston Castle]

~snip because this is really long~

Probably a misunderstanding. And I would ask then, how would you go about plugging this hole you referenced then? I'm completely open to suggestions on this.

Contrary to what it seems: I'd love to win your vote! It irks me that I haven't! But sincerely, if you have an issue as you've outlined: please just let me know, how would you fix it?

[Boston Castle]

In all fairness to IA, and I respect the hell out of him, I'm just not seeing what he's seeing. I have talked to others and they haven't seen it/they haven't been able to point it out either. That's not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm just not seeing that defect. Accordingly, moved to last call. Will sit on this for another few days.

Edit: Got some new feedback on EIA's forums. Going to work that in there first.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Ideological ban rule?

[Hulldom]

OOC: Ideological ban rule?

Kind of the point of the last clause, though if you all believe it is then obviously I’d fix it. The rest of it addresses criminal law (you can’t have an organization that advocates for mass murder) for just that reason.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In all fairness to IA, and I respect the hell out of him, I'm just not seeing what he's seeing. I have talked to others and they haven't seen it/they haven't been able to point it out either. That's not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm just not seeing that defect. Accordingly, moved to last call. Will sit on this for another few days.

Your initial draft said that people have a right to associate with whomever they want. I said people also have a right not to associate with people. I then provided warrants as to why that exists and why government action (putting something in a resolution) would be unjustified.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Ideological ban rule?

Kind of the point of the last clause, though if you all believe it is then obviously I’d fix it. The rest of it addresses criminal law (you can’t have an organization that advocates for mass murder) for just that reason.

OOC: The definition of organisation includes political parties. Then section 2 says people are free to associate with organisations. You've just abolished all one party regimes.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Ideological ban rule?

Kind of the point of the last clause, though if you all believe it is then obviously I’d fix it. The rest of it addresses criminal law (you can’t have an organization that advocates for mass murder) for just that reason.

If the last clause is meant as an ideological ban, then that would make this proposal illegal, no?

[Ardiveds]

Kind of the point of the last clause, though if you all believe it is then obviously I’d fix it. The rest of it addresses criminal law (you can’t have an organization that advocates for mass murder) for just that reason.

If the last clause is meant as an ideological ban, then that would make this proposal illegal, no?

OOC: I think he means the last clause is there to avoid falling in violation of the rule.

[Daarwyrth]

If the last clause is meant as an ideological ban, then that would make this proposal illegal, no?

OOC: I think he means the last clause is there to avoid falling in violation of the rule.

Ah, right, then I misunderstood, apologies.

[Rhino-Lions]

Rhino Lions could support this legislation, after its cleaned up. The general idea here is solid, but clarity is lacking on it. Really could use a cleaner rewrite, and we would support it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't particularly buy that abolishing one party regimes is an ideological ban. Communism or fascism or whatever you want to place here is not banned merely because you stopped $PARTY from abolishing all other parties.

[Mancheseva City]

Interesting discussion between BC and IA. If I understood correctly, the problem according to IA is that "citizens may associate with any organisation of their choosing, subject to..." implies that private entities may not prohibit other private entities from associating with organisations.

Then a simple fix would be "governments are mandated to allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing, subject to..."

It does make sense that a parent should be able to prohibit their children from entering some shady (but not illegal) clubs and gangs.

The question is whether that interpretation makes sense at all. I do see that argument sort of. In any case I think the fix above wouldn't make the resolution worse, and if it's what it takes to have IA's support - then why not. But maybe I misunderstood something and IA has some other problems with the resolution

[Ardiveds]

I don't particularly buy that abolishing one party regimes is an ideological ban. Communism or fascism or whatever you want to place here is not banned merely because you stopped $PARTY from abolishing all other parties.

OOC: I always assumed dictatorships and one-party systems were considered 'ideologies' for the sake of tbe ideology ban rule, similar to how theocracy is considered an 'ideology'.

[Boston Castle]

I don't particularly buy that abolishing one party regimes is an ideological ban. Communism or fascism or whatever you want to place here is not banned merely because you stopped $PARTY from abolishing all other parties.

I don't particularly see it either, but deleting that clause is probably for the best. Leaves no doubt re: the ideological ban rule.

Interesting discussion between BC and IA. If I understood correctly, the problem according to IA is that "citizens may associate with any organisation of their choosing, subject to..." implies that private entities may not prohibit other private entities from associating with organisations.

Then a simple fix would be "governments are mandated to allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing, subject to..."

It does make sense that a parent should be able to prohibit their children from entering some shady (but not illegal) clubs and gangs.

The question is whether that interpretation makes sense at all. I do see that argument sort of. In any case I think the fix above wouldn't make the resolution worse, and if it's what it takes to have IA's support - then why not. But maybe I misunderstood something and IA has some other problems with the resolution

Literally just adopted that wording. Also, thank you for spelling out the issue for me. I wasn't quite getting it.

[Boston Castle]

After a marathon session on the WA Discord (thanks to IA, Banana, and Daarwyrth!), this is what we're up to in the current draft. If you have any other nitpicks, please state them fairly soon.

[Boston Castle]

Bumping this one more time before I move it to last call again, supposing, of course, nothing significant comes up this time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

For the last month, you've kept threatening to submit to be foiled by (if you include the Discord chats that only I've been in, would probably be up to 4 or 5 pages of discussion, on top of what is already present here) large problems identified by other players. I really don't think you should continue to threaten to submit as a means of getting attention for feedback; instead, go read and think about your proposal in depth.