[DEFEATED] Freedom of Opinion and Belief

[Tinhampton]

This is being semi-actively worked on; I hope to submit it before September 30th.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong

Neville: 'This proposal would do absolutely nothing to prevent so-called "brainwashing", never mind the fact that one nation's brainwashing is another nation's public information campaign.'

forbids member states from:

1. criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,

Neville: 'A completely useless provision. How exactly are member states going to ban the mere holding of an unexpressed opinion? Is telepathy now commonplace throughout the multiverse?'

criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic

Neville: 'Is this not already illegal?'

requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the proceedings of courts, tribunals and similar mechanisms are swift and truthful,

Neville: 'This is a good clause despite the objections of so-called "liberal" states that it is right, proper and liberal to force their inhabitants to express opinions deemed progressive or to reject opinions deemed un-progressive. However, would this not ban citizenship oaths and loyalty oaths taken by elected politicians? That'd be going too far in our view.'

[Tinhampton]

This is now being very actively worked on. All comments below this line are IC and by Smith.

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong

Neville: 'This proposal would do absolutely nothing to prevent so-called "brainwashing", never mind the fact that one nation's brainwashing is another nation's public information campaign.'

Preambles are guiding, non-statutory statements. The aim of this proposal is to prevent brainwashing by protecting the holding of thoughts.

forbids member states from:

1. criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,

Neville: 'A completely useless provision. How exactly are member states going to ban the mere holding of an unexpressed opinion? Is telepathy now commonplace throughout the multiverse?'

Not all member states are incapable of installing precrime detection systems.

criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic

Neville: 'Is this not already illegal?'

Discrimination on the ground of such characteristics is illegal, as is genocide. Their actual possession is, to my awareness, not.

requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the proceedings of courts, tribunals and similar mechanisms are swift and truthful,

Neville: 'This is a good clause despite the objections of so-called "liberal" states that it is right, proper and liberal to force their inhabitants to express opinions deemed progressive or to reject opinions deemed un-progressive. However, would this not ban citizenship oaths and loyalty oaths taken by elected politicians? That'd be going too far in our view.'

A substantial change has been made: firstly to include citizenship oaths; secondly to expand the court-and-tribunal provisions to all "judicial and legislative mechanisms." It is my belief that assenting to bills before they can pass, as a head of state, constitutes a legislative mechanism.

[Parmistan]

The Sovereign People's Republic of Parmistan has always reserved and will continue to reserve the moral right to criminalize Fascism, both in speech and in deed. Also this resolution breaks rules so...

[Tinhampton]

Also this resolution breaks rules so...

This is an extraordinary accusation to be making. How is this proposal illegal?

[Tinhampton]

I haven't gotten a response to this after a week. Carry on.

[Juansonia]

The Sovereign People's Republic of Parmistan has always reserved and will continue to reserve the moral right to criminalize Fascism, both in speech and in deed.

"If you want to be wrong about how to prevent Fascists from taking control, you are free to withdraw from the World Assembly after this passes." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Parmistan]

Also this resolution breaks rules so...

This is an extraordinary accusation to be making. How is this proposal illegal?

The resolution makes direct references to real world events, which is explicitly prohibited in the WA.

The Sovereign People's Republic of Parmistan has always reserved and will continue to reserve the moral right to criminalize Fascism, both in speech and in deed.

"If you want to be wrong about how to prevent Fascists from taking control, you are free to withdraw from the World Assembly after this passes." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

If it passes.

[Barfleur]

This is an extraordinary accusation to be making. How is this proposal illegal?

The resolution makes direct references to real world events, which is explicitly prohibited in the WA.

OOC: How so?

[Parmistan]

The resolution makes direct references to real world events, which is explicitly prohibited in the WA.

OOC: How so?

At the time I wrote the original comment, it was full of language about recent events in the news.

[Astrobolt]

OOC: How so?

At the time I wrote the original comment, it was full of language about recent events in the news.

OOC: You are referring to the out-of-character opening rationale, not the actual proposal itself.

[Tinhampton]

Given that it is controversial, unwieldy and increasingly likely to become very unwieldy given enough time thinking about it, I'm strongly inclined to remove Article a(iii). I stand by the rest of this proposal.

[The Ice States]

Article a(iii) has its roots in certain American proposals to ban or at least disincentivise the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools - see, for instance, New Hampshire HB 544 ("The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II") or Chip Roy's federally proposed CRT Act ("The term ‘‘promote’’, when used with respect to a race-based theory described in subsection (c), means... (C) to compel students to profess a belief in such theories.") I added Article d Article c later to clarify that this is the only regulation of speech directly imposed by my proposal.

Strongly opposed to any attempt to ban CRT.

any person or group due to their holding (not necessarily expression) of any opinions or beliefs, nor any arbitrary and reductive characteristics they may possess, and

How does this apply in the case of compelling practical purposes as in GA #35? Is affirmative action still possible?

any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs, and

Is this an attempt to reintroduce Popular Statecraft?

[Attempted Socialism]

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs

I need some help parsing what on Earth is going on in this clause, and what effects it would have.

[Tinhampton]

Article a(iii) has its roots in certain American proposals to ban or at least disincentivise the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools - see, for instance, New Hampshire HB 544 ("The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II") or Chip Roy's federally proposed CRT Act ("The term ‘‘promote’’, when used with respect to a race-based theory described in subsection (c), means... (C) to compel students to profess a belief in such theories.") I added Article d Article c later to clarify that this is the only regulation of speech directly imposed by my proposal.

Strongly opposed to any attempt to ban CRT.

Excised.

any person or group due to their holding (not necessarily expression) of any opinions or beliefs, nor any arbitrary and reductive characteristics they may possess, and

How does this apply in the case of compelling practical purposes as in GA #35? Is affirmative action still possible?

Affirmative action is banned by Article 2 of GA#457.

any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs, and

Is this an attempt to reintroduce Popular Statecraft?

No. This clause has been present in all versions of Freedom and Opinion and Belief dating back to July 2021.

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs

I need some help parsing what on Earth is going on in this clause, and what effects it would have.

Please read my explanation of Article b in OP again

[Cessarea]

How does this apply in the case of compelling practical purposes as in GA #35? Is affirmative action still possible?

Affirmative action is banned by Article 2 of GA#457.

It seems I've found myself a repeal! GA#457 is very poorly written in general, we need to get rid of it.

[Attempted Socialism]

I need some help parsing what on Earth is going on in this clause, and what effects it would have.

Please read my explanation of Article b in OP again

I did, that wasn't particularly helpful, so I decided to ask in the thread. I suppose I'll have to repeat my request.

[The Ice States]

Affirmative action is banned by Article 2 of GA#457.

Only in the case of sexual and gender minorities, and even so I think non-perpetuation is preferable here.

Is this an attempt to reintroduce Popular Statecraft?

No. This clause has been present in all versions of Freedom and Opinion and Belief dating back to July 2021.

In that case could you describe an example of discrimination against governments for their actions or beliefs prohibited by this clause?

[Tinhampton]

This draft has been extremely shortened to resolve - or attempt to resolve - Mage's concerns. Further shortenings may occur in the coming 10-12 days or so.

[Tinhampton]

Bump.

[Tinhampton]

hope to submit it before September 30th.

And it will indeed be submitted on September 29th. Hurry up or be forever barred!

[Barfleur]

"While this delegation supports the aims of this proposal, we are disappointed that the authoring delegation has chosen to weaken some of the strongest things prior drafts had to offer. It is well and good that 'brainwashing' will be made illegal internationally--and I mean that without any sarcasm--but member states will still be free to require their inhabitants to affirm beliefs they do not hold, indeed which they may find hateful and illogical, or to desist from expressing controversial beliefs. We hope that future legislation will build upon this proposal once it becomes law."

OOC: I know, I know, you did what you had to do to make this more palatable, but you can't restrict my freedom to express my disagreement with that...

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
The present draft is acceptable. This will change if any 'CRT'-ban inspired clauses are re-added, or if any language is added that prohibits Member-States from criminalizing the expression or dissemination of fascist and supremacist ideas and viewpoints.

[Tinhampton]

I do not intend to change this proposal absent an extremely compelling argument and am doubly uninclined to restore the old Article a(iii) in whatever form. T - 53 hours.

[Tinhampton]

This proposal was submitted but only got 46 of the ~55 approvals required. The thread tag therefore remains accurate: I am planning a third submission for October 6th.