[DRAFT] Stopping the negation of truth

[Imperium Anglorum]

Preamble to come. On mobile. Formatting also to come.

The World Assembly,

...

Exercising powers granted under GA XXX section #,

Hereby permits and requires nations to prohibit speech attempting to deny clearly established historical facts.

Alt.
Hereby permits and requires nations to prevent the abuse of expression where it is exercised for the purpose of destroying or advocating the destruction of fundamental freedoms set forth in World Assembly legislation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The purpose of this proposal is to prohibit Holocaust denial.

I permit the submission of this proposal by a person who is already a GA author, with appropriate substitution of arbitrary text to the preamble, where the operative clause is unchanged.

[United Massachusetts]

I'm not in favour of the requirement, but certainly am of the permission.

[United Massachusetts]

Technically, however, my resolution never requires member nations to legalise denialism of any sort:

"free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,

Denialists do not speak on matters of belief; they speak falsely on matters of fact.

[Kiravian WA Mission]

"The KWAM is adamantly opposed to this resolution for multiple reasons, but mainly because the operative clause is excessively broad. If the aim of the resolution is to ban speech attempting to deny the historicity of major genocides, war crimes, and other such events, then it should specify that. As written, this resolution would force national governments to waste time and money prosecuting crackpots who believe that the Middle Ages never happened, people who believe the 21172 Kiravian Moon landing was filmed on a soundstage, people who publish honest mistakes or inaccuracies in historical works, and visitors from countries where one interpretation of historical facts is taught who express that interpretation in a country where a conflicting interpretation is considered a clearly established historical fact. It would also infringe unnecessarily on academic freedom by banning legitimate historians from advancing theories that challenge established narratives of uncontroversial events in good faith that may be borne out by evidence.

We understand the desire on the part of many nations to ban denialism of particular historical events, and acknowledge that such bans often serve a legitimate role in preserving public order, maintaining peaceful relations among different social groups, aiding reconciliation processes following civil wars or régime transitions, and preventing the growth of extremism. However, for the vast majority of facts, combating denialism is best left to civil society and the academic community rather than the state.

We propose instead that this blanket mandate be replaced with a resolution protecting the right of member states to ban the public, deliberate denial of clearly established facts relating to historical events involving large-scale violence or oppression, or speech that attempts to deny clearly established historical facts that pose a threat to public order or the equality and rights of a particular community. Or something along those lines, you know?"

[Uan aa Boa]

As I've been arguing, this would be far better dealt with using a single line in a proposal on freedom of expression. Regarding the text (such as it as) of this draft, why on earth should my government be required to prohibit the claim that Columbus first landed in the Americas in 1493, or that Winston Churchill's middle name was Granville?

[Uan aa Boa]

Technically, however, my resolution never requires member nations to legalise denialism of any sort:

"free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,

Denialists do not speak on matters of belief; they speak falsely on matters of fact.

Factual/counter-factual propositions can clearly be the subject of belief.

[Kowani]

Technically, however, my resolution never requires member nations to legalise denialism of any sort:

"free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,

Denialists do not speak on matters of belief; they speak falsely on matters of fact.

Well, not exactly. Belief and fact are not mutually exclusive. They (Holocaust deniers) believe the facts to be lies. Plus, then we end up having argue about nations who teach religions that violate scientific facts, actual whistleblowers, etc, etc.

Against.

[Wallenburg]

"Fascinating. I knew not quite the extent to which the English delegation supported total state control over the historical narrative, and the imprisonment of any dissidents who might attempt to challenge false narratives constructed by member states to justify their past actions."

[Kranostav]

OOC: While I support a sediment to prevent holocaust denial, I feel rather uncomfortable at the thought of a government controlling speech related to history. It appears to be easily taken advantage of and could otherwise harm purveyors of verifiable truth in countries who wish to squelch inconvenient or otherwise uncomfortable truths.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Court considers that it is not its task to settle this point, which is part of an ongoing debate among historians about the events in question and their interpretation. As such, it does not belong to the category of clearly established historical facts – such as the Holocaust – whose negation or revision would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17.

ECtHR, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, Grand Chamber (GC), Appl. no. 24662/94, Judgment of 23 September 1998.

[D]enying the reality of clearly established historical facts, such as the Holocaust … undermines the values on which the fight against racism and anti-Semitism are based and constitutes a serious threat to public order. Such acts are incompatible with democracy and human rights because they infringe the rights of others.

ECtHR, Garaudy c France, Appl. no. 65831/01, Decision of 24 June 2003.

[Zone 71]

OOC: Opposed. As offensive and downright abhorrent as these "9/11 was an inside job" and "the Holocaust is a hoax!" comments are, by no means should we encroach upon citizens' freedom of speech to silence them, especially through this embarrassing piece of proposed legislation. And this proposal would easily justify corrupt governments' imprisonment and punishment of individuals who make what the bureaucracy perceives as "false" statements.

[Kenmoria]

“Opposed, based on the fact that it is required for nations to prohibit untrue speech under this proposal. While it is acceptable to, and indeed morally right to, prohibit deliberate historical inaccuracy, it is not justifiable for the World Assembly to mandate this.”

[Stoskavanya]

Opposed. Seems like the job of a state's educational system rather than its criminal justice one.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"While agreeing with the sentiment and spirit behind this proposal, we feel it gives governments too much leeway to prosecute those who try in good faith to dispel misinformation and cover stories put forth for national security reasons. Those who write that, contrary to the 'established historical fact' propounded by the spy apparatus, the People's Front of Judaea did in fact acquire nuclear weapons; or that Murrkin troops didn't remain within their legally-defined sphere of operations in Southeast Aegea, but in fact conducted operations in Lay-Oass and Kampuchea; or that the CIA did in fact conduct mind control and brainwashing experiments on its own citizens without their informed consent; all these writers would be vulnerable to prosecution under this massively overzealous rule. In the name of the very same historical facts this resolution claims to uphold, we have to oppose it."

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"The Havenic delegation shall continue to oppose any and all attempts by the world assembly to regulate freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, no matter how offensive, must be held sacred; the passage of this proposal would place World Assembly law in direct conflict with the Havenic constitution."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"We consider the proposed alternate text to be even worse than the entirely unacceptable original. Given the legislative agenda of the Empire of the Angles, we are confused as to why they would seek to make it illegal to advocate for the repeal of such a great number of WA mandates. We continue to consider it unacceptably dangerous to allow ANY government to become the arbiter of what is or is not true and find it entirely likely that enforcement would become a nightmare as nations established entirely incompatible 'facts' under this resolution."

[Liberimery]

"While agreeing with the sentiment and spirit behind this proposal, we feel it gives governments too much leeway to prosecute those who try in good faith to dispel misinformation and cover stories put forth for national security reasons. Those who write that, contrary to the 'established historical fact' propounded by the spy apparatus, the People's Front of Judaea did in fact acquire nuclear weapons; or that Murrkin troops didn't remain within their legally-defined sphere of operations in Southeast Aegea, but in fact conducted operations in Lay-Oass and Kampuchea; or that the CIA did in fact conduct mind control and brainwashing experiments on its own citizens without their informed consent; all these writers would be vulnerable to prosecution under this massively overzealous rule. In the name of the very same historical facts this resolution claims to uphold, we have to oppose it."

I thought it was the Judaea People's Front that did that. Though this confusion might stem from the myriad of movements within the area and their seeming love of the letters F,P, and J.


At either rate, we oppose the legislation as an affront free speech. Although these beliefs are fringe at best, banning them from the market place of ideas will serve only to validate the beliefs in their own eyes. Many such individuals have a distrust of government and we feel that addressing these beliefs in such a foolish manner would only embolden the ideological foundation of these belief holders.


We also would like to point out the laughably ironic nature of the ambassador who campaigned for a repeal of free speech and freedom of religion to now wish to criminalize expressions that advocate for the removal of rights. If we give the right to speak one's mind in public forum, then we must give speech to people who wish to restrict it. I can think of no better moral argument for strong freedom of speech rights than to extend those rights to the people who advocate their removal from others.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. The C.D.S.P. doesn't see any compelling reason for our government to regulate historical facts. We maintain a government library, including government documents and historical treatises, so on. If people want to deny those facts, they are welcome to do so. Such is their right. If you wish to control the speech of your citizens, by all means, ambassador, do so. Do not put that onus on us."

[Uan aa Boa]

We would strongly support allowing member nations to legislate against the denial of historical genocide when local circumstances make that appropriate. We have opposed the proposal currently at vote in large part because it prevents this. To do this in such enormously broad sweeps, however, requiring legislation against the denial of all historical facts, is grossly excessive. The alternative text is likewise far too comprehensive and would require patently ridiculous laws to be passed throughout the Assembly.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

We would strongly support allowing member nations to legislate against the denial of historical genocide when local circumstances make that appropriate. We have opposed the proposal currently at vote in large part because it prevents this. To do this in such enormously broad sweeps, however, requiring legislation against the denial of all historical facts, is grossly excessive. The alternative text is likewise far too comprehensive and would require patently ridiculous laws to be passed throughout the Assembly.

The current anti-freedom trend within the general assembly is deeply disturbing to the delegation of the Greater Vakolicci Haven. It is absolutely the world assemblys duty to safeguard freedom from those tyrannical states which wish to restrict it: public decency, race relations, hatred; these are all excuses created by those who hold freedom as anathema in order to silence the voice of the people.

[Kenmoria]

We would strongly support allowing member nations to legislate against the denial of historical genocide when local circumstances make that appropriate. We have opposed the proposal currently at vote in large part because it prevents this. To do this in such enormously broad sweeps, however, requiring legislation against the denial of all historical facts, is grossly excessive. The alternative text is likewise far too comprehensive and would require patently ridiculous laws to be passed throughout the Assembly.

I agree, refocusing this proposal on the idea of prohibiting Holocaust denial and similar ideas would be more agreeable to most WA nations, including Kenmoria. The concept of prohibiting establishing opposition to all historical facts is absurd because, even today, previously thought infallible ideas about the past are being challenged.

[Petrolheadia]

"Opposed. How do we define a historical viewpoint as "clearly established" "fact"?

In fact, the law would be useless, as a viewpoint that is being contested easily is not "established"."

[Prydania]

In fact, the law would be useless, as a viewpoint that is being contested easily is not "established."

OOC: It’s well established that the Holocaust happened, m8

[Petrolheadia]

In fact, the law would be useless, as a viewpoint that is being contested easily is not "established."

OOC: It’s well established that the Holocaust happened, m8

There is a significant amount of researchers disputing it.