NationStates

This starter bit was relevant when I started writing this. Now it is not. Do with that knowledge what you will.

Freedom of Association

Category: Civil Rights| Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the many foundational freedoms previously guaranteed by this Assembly such as freedom of the press and freedom of assembly,

Recognizing that while these fundamental freedoms are guaranteed that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of affiliation that is not,

Believing that no nation should enact criminal penalties for affiliating with an organisation not involved in the commission of a crime, hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:

1. Governments must allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing.
   
   1. Freedom of association with an organisation is subject to the organisation in question allowing such association.
   2. An organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it actively undermines national security, directs its members to violate national criminal law, includes the commission of crimes among its goals or activities, or spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group.

The one-item list in Article 5 may be understandable; the one-item list in Article 1 is not ;p

Your sentences don't operate in parallel construction.

OOC: Bump, I guess. Whole thing has basically been re-worded. Turns out I only occasionally have an excellent command of the English language.

My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

Tinhampton wrote:My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

Your wording in article 3 could use some work. 'Has' spread a message of hate is very open ended. If a member nation has a political party that's been operating since 1920, it is quite likely that messages once expressed by that party in the normal course of politicking at that point in history, would be considered hateful towards some groups now. This would allow member states to ban them on this ground.

Boston Castle wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

OOC: I think you want:

Further recognizing that while these rights are important in and of themselves that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of thought and affiliation, hereby enacts the following:

1. “Organization” is defined as any labour union, political party, or other organized civil society or economic group.

And keep the rest as is.

I think this is a good idea and I'm happy to see a draft on this topic. I would note that Right to Assemble protects "planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition" - so the protections granted there, as well as the exceptions reserving to member states the ability to implement certain restrictions, might apply to the purview of this draft, too. I'm not sure if that causes any problems as currently written, I only had a chance to give this a brief look for now.

Maowi wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

OOC: I think you want:

Further recognizing that while these rights are important in and of themselves that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of thought and affiliation, hereby enacts the following:

1. “Organization” is defined as any labour union, political party, or other organized civil society or economic group.

And keep the rest as is.

I think this is a good idea and I'm happy to see a draft on this topic. I would note that Right to Assemble protects "planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition" - so the protections granted there, as well as the exceptions reserving to member states the ability to implement certain restrictions, might apply to the purview of this draft, too. I'm not sure if that causes any problems as currently written, I only had a chance to give this a brief look for now.

"If worst comes to worst, Ambassador, I will seek a ruling on that. All it might require is changing the wording of this resolution to avoid the house of cards ruling from GenSec. And as for your concern, it shouldn't."

OOC: Literally just copy-pasted that wording, so I credit you as co-author. If you don't want it, just let me know.

Boston Castle wrote:"If worst comes to worst, Ambassador, I will seek a ruling on that. All it might require is changing the wording of this resolution to avoid the house of cards ruling from GenSec. And as for your concern, it shouldn't."

OOC: Literally just copy-pasted that wording, so I credit you as co-author. If you don't want it, just let me know.

OOC: Co-author credit is not necessary, I just gave you a minor reformatting rather than anything of substance :>

FTR I think the solution of making these measures "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation" works and fixes any potential problem that may have otherwise arisen in terms of contradiction.

Member nations may not disallow all organizations save for one, however, member nations may encourage the creation of a united front coalition of organizations.

I'm just not sure what you mean or intend to achieve with this clause.

Otherwise, I don't think it duplicates Right to Assemble. Maybe other resolutions? Don't think so either though. Looks like something I could support

I think you're on the right track here, though as previously mentioned, some clarity would go a long way in helping persuade my nation to support this bill. But again, I like the concept but the lack of clarity and the ambiguity of some of the statements leave me on the fence for support.

Rhino-Lions wrote:I think you're on the right track here, though as previously mentioned, some clarity would go a long way in helping persuade my nation to support this bill. But again, I like the concept but the lack of clarity and the ambiguity of some of the statements leave me on the fence for support.

Mancheseva City wrote:

Member nations may not disallow all organizations save for one, however, member nations may encourage the creation of a united front coalition of organizations.

I'm just not sure what you mean or intend to achieve with this clause.

Otherwise, I don't think it duplicates Right to Assemble. Maybe other resolutions? Don't think so either though. Looks like something I could support

[OOC: I'm quoting Seva even though we already discussed this on Discord.]

"Ambassador, the real reason behind that clause is to say that member states could not disallow all organizations save for one. Say a nation has one party and an opposition group. It could not ban the opposition group, but the moment they join a united front, all is well. It's to fit under the ideological ban rule."

OOC: One way to think about this, albeit a rather extreme example would be the two most prominent examples of this among communist governments in East Germany's National Front of the German Democratic Republic where multiple organizations were allowed albeit within one institutional framework. Where there were discernable memberships in the parties in East Germany, another more extreme "popular front" organization without (as far as we know) discernible memberships for anything besides the civil society organizations in North Korea's Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea. The idea of that clause is simply to say "you have to allow the illusion of choice, even if that choice doesn't really exist". It's a concession to dictatorships of all stripes.

[bump]

Why not change "national law" and "national criminal law" to "applicable law" and "criminal law" respectively, so as to include WA law and possibly-existing provincial/regional/whatever other laws apply?

Merni wrote:Why not change "national law" and "national criminal law" to "applicable law" and "criminal law" respectively, so as to include WA law and possibly-existing provincial/regional/whatever other laws apply?

That's actually a fantastic idea. Will fix here in a few minutes.

_Would like_ to submit this on Friday. It will be on Hulldom if submitted then.

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. A few remarks.


First, which classes are protected?

Second, let us go back into the history of the United Commonwealth's core. In 851 RE, T Caecilius Varro passed the lex Caecilia de pietate publica, which made it illegal for any person to adhere to Galileanism, required all citizens of the republic to offer sacrifice for its health, barred any Galilean from public service or attendance at schools accepting funds from the state (including tax exemptions), prohibited the building of any new Galilean shrines, imposed a 50 per cent tax on revenues at existing Galilean shrines, and required the Galilean population of Durovernum Cantiacorum to finance the reconstruction of the temples to Andraste, Quirinus, and Mithras (destroyed in a violent purge of non-Galileans when the Galileans were briefly in control of the town during an invasion by forces under the control of rebellious provinces). Imperial History (1st edn, 1920) ch 3.3 (OOC, the IA history sourcebook). Other laws followed, banning human sacrifice, actions glorifying human sacrifice, cannibalism, and actions celebrating cannibalism.

Let's assume resolutions like 'Freedom of Religion' do not exist and that this proposal exists in a vacuum, excluding GA 2. A few questions.

1. Would a ban on membership of Galilean cults be permitted? Is this because it would be permitted under the provision allowing a ban on hateful organisations? Or would it instead be rescued by later laws banning the glorification of human sacrifice and cannibalism, which such organisations would inherently break, due to cannibalistic celebration of the Eucharist?
   
   
2. Would such a law be permitted – justified by actions of Galileans in 850 RE – until 1851 RE, when the law was finally repealed by the comitia tributa? If various Galilean religious institutions building their lairs in provinces under rebellion attempted to declare religious wars against the Roman people, would such action be justified post hoc? If the laws banning the glorification of human sacrifice and cannibalism were not repealed, would such laws be permitted presently?

---

This clause makes no sense. 'The creation of an organisation' implies an ongoing action. Because an organisation can only be 'created' when that ongoing creation action completes, that organisation – ie it – cannot intend to violate or have violated anything, making the conditions under which powers could be exercised unfulfillable.

Edits have been made to it re: IA's comments. Will wait for him to respond but expect to submit this in ~24 hours otherwise.

OOC: I don't think extant international law really creates any "protected classes" at all, re: clause 3. If this is to do with making sure minorities aren't targeted as I assume it is, then the anti-discrimination protections in place in the World Assembly put more emphasis on mandating equal treatment and rights for everyone, rather than pinpointing certain demographic groups as a "protected class" (e.g. as in the Charter of Civil Rights.) Why not just remove the reference to a "protected class" and leave it at spreading "a message of violence or hate" towards any person or group of people, or something like that?

I also think an issue with clause 3, where you're looking back at organisations spreading violence or hate in remote times in history as grounds for a ban, hasn't really been addressed. I think a possible fix here is changing "has not spread" to "does not spread".

I'm not sure I'm all that happy with how clause 4 works. I'm imagining it exists for the purpose of making sure member states can't target particular organisations, and have to be consistent with the enforcement of their laws on the issue, but it seems potentially counterproductive when it comes to dealing with dangerous extremist groups. I believe a clause that simply explicitly mandated that member states have a consistently enforced standard in regards to membership in organisations might work better.

Clause 3 contains firstly a double negative and then a missing negative. I think you mean to say something to the effect that nations may act against an organisation only if it spreads a message of hate or plans a crime, but you've actually said almost the opposite in the current draft.

Although I know what you mean, it also seems strange to phrase clause 3 as "nations may not set penalties" and then clause 4 as "nations may set penalties."

I'd be concerned that allowing an organisation to be banned on the basis of planning a crime against property could give governments a lot of scope for outlawing environmental and other protest groups involved in direct action. I'd also be concerned about clause 4 allowing nations to ban organisations that are merely accused of a crime with no requirement that the accusation stand up to scrutiny. A government could throw out some spurious allegations and ban the target group on the basis of that.

I don't think you should submit this, it's far from ready.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Clause 3 contains firstly a double negative and then a missing negative. I think you mean to say something to the effect that nations may act against an organisation only if it spreads a message of hate or plans a crime, but you've actually said almost the opposite in the current draft.

Although I know what you mean, it also seems strange to phrase clause 3 as "nations may not set penalties" and then clause 4 as "nations may set penalties."

I'd be concerned that allowing an organisation to be banned on the basis of planning a crime against property could give governments a lot of scope for outlawing environmental and other protest groups involved in direct action. I'd also be concerned about clause 4 allowing nations to ban organisations that are merely accused of a crime with no requirement that the accusation stand up to scrutiny. A government could throw out some spurious allegations and ban the target group on the basis of that.

I don't think you should submit this, it's far from ready.

I disagree with the last thing, but hopefully those things should be fixed. Nice catches on both.

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, property, or physical well-being.

OOC: What if the violence is aimed against state property?

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:

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, property, or physical well-being.

OOC: What if the violence is aimed against state property?

Good catch, will tweak that wording slightly.

Also, a general note: will delay submission on this until Sunday's major (so midnight Saturday if you prefer).

Boston Castle wrote: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.