This is the updated proposal 24/9/2018. Removed draft replacement. Focusing on the repeal now.
---
Acknowledging that GAR#436 - Protecting Free Expression" is a progressive resolution that works towards ensuring the freedom of expressions of all peoples,
Commending its effectiveness in limiting certain types of speech, especially in areas relating to minors,
It is worth noting that the resolution is inadequate in protecting people’s right to freedom of expression.
Therefore, a repeal is proposed in order for a more comprehensive resolution to be passed at a later time.
Specific objections to this resolution:
1)Under section 1, which deals with definitions:
It is stated that:
"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,”
This is insufficient, as the fear should not be limited to fear of the state, but fear of hate crimes and discrimination – privately or publicly, by the general public. For reference, a hate crime is any criminal action that takes place due to racial, religious, or ideological prejudice and bias toward any particular individual or group. While hate-crime in itself falls under a separate domain, its expression is closely related to free-speech. Often, hate-crimes are a result of the inability of one to intellectually and emotionally process another’s choice to express his or her views freely. As such, the fear is real – it goes beyond the fear of the state. This repeal will make way for tougher WA resolutions that require states to enact laws criminalizing hate-speech
2) Under section 2, which deals with “reasonable restrictions”
It is stated that:
“an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness”
While this is a legitimate concern, has been demonstrated many times over in many nations as an excuse exercised by the state to silence political opposition, rather than protecting the general public. More importantly, this criterion generally absolves the state – in which if the state expresses something that incites violence and lawlessness, this resolution is not invoked against them.
It is argued that the WA cannot control how nation states choose to oppress or not oppress their people. If that is so, this statement reeks of hypocrisy and should not even be there. A replacement resolution will more adequately protect the freedom of expression more constructively.
3) This resolution does not adequately address discrimination against any and all individuals and groups, regardless of ideological, political, and personal preferences. People should not need to feel silenced from having an opinion that is different from the majority. A resolution that more strongly allows equal expression by various groups, and protects all parties – whether majority or minority, popular or unpopular, from discrimination, hate speech, ex-communication, and/or any form of punishment outside the rule of law.
4) While this current resolution has the right motivation and ideas as its foundation, it is insufficient in its scope of protection.
