DRAFT - Restrictions on public demonstrations

[Dutha Gropi]

Hey!
This is my new proposal draft to the General Assembly. Please, could you, correct my formal mistakes in the comments?
Please don't write your political opinions down there, that's what the votings in the GA are for!
So, here it comes:

The members of the World Assembly, are
NOTICING the destabilizing effects of some violent anti-governmental demonstrations,
REJECTING these aforementioned effects together with their cause,
therefore
PLEDGING to do something about this problem.

Hence the Members of the World Assembly
Hereby:
A) Define a public demonstration as an event where more than 15 people express their political opinions in public.
B) Furthermore define an anti-governmental public demonstration as an aforementioned public demonstration, where the expressed political opinions directly oppose the statements and resolutions of the government.
C) Therefore ban all anti-governmental public demonstrations in the member states of the World Assembly,
D) And finally, authorize law enforcement institutions, such as the military and the local police to take the necessary steps to stop these anti-governmental public demonstrations from happening.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Hey there! I’m looking up if this is in conflict with any GA Rules or any GAR.

Edit:
This seems to be in conflict with GAR#2, Section III, Article 10. And I quote:

“Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.”

[Ausinia]

Seams a little dictorial, shouldn’t the people express their opinions in a democracy, isn’t that what democracy is?

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Seams a little dictorial, shouldn’t the people express their opinions in a democracy, isn’t that what democracy is?

This does go against the principles of lots of WA member nations, espescially Democracies.

EDIT: More discrepancies! It appears that this is in violation of the Contradiction section. Ikm not entirely sure if this is a metagaming violation though.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC:
This looks to be in violation of GAR#436, Protecting Free Expression. This resolution defines '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' and prohibits 'member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression' with some exceptions, none of which you mention in your proposal.
Therefore, I would say it is illegal at the moment.

[Dutha Gropi]

Thank you!

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

OOC:
This looks to be in violation of GAR#436, Protecting Free Expression. This resolution defines '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' and prohibits 'member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression' with some exceptions, none of which you mention in your proposal.
Therefore, I would say it is illegal at the moment.

I concur with this post.

[Bears Armed]

This seems to be in conflict with GAR#2, Section III, Article 10. And I quote:
“Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.”

OOC
No, that is only about the WA taking sides in particular conflicts and does not bar the WA from declaring general types of action to be illegal: Otherwise a LOT of the subsequently-passed resolutions would themselves have had to be declared illegal and discarded.
What it does contradict is GA Resolution #27 'Freedom of Assembly'. [one-sixth of GenSec]

[New Bremerton]

Freedom of speech, expression, assembly, conscience and association are sacrosanct here in New Bremerton and the civilized democracies of the world. Authoritarian ilk such as yourselves will never succeed in trampling on the rights of our citizens or those of other freedom-loving nations. Also, this proposal is very likely illegal anyway.

AGAINST.

[Vichy Rich]

Fully supported, protests are heavily suppressed in Vichy Rich, often with force, as the public demonstration is outlawed in our nation you have the full support backing of Vichy Rich

[Newark Aristocracy]

Fully supported, protests are heavily suppressed in Vichy Rich, often with force, as the public demonstration is outlawed in our nation you have the full support backing of Vichy Rich

To WAR IT IS!

[Vichy Rich]

Fully supported, protests are heavily suppressed in Vichy Rich, often with force, as the public demonstration is outlawed in our nation you have the full support backing of Vichy Rich

To WAR IT IS!

Hmmm?

[Falcania]

It's essentially unenforceable in the Free Kingdom, so, good luck with that?

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

This seems to be in conflict with GAR#2, Section III, Article 10. And I quote:
“Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.”

OOC
No, that is only about the WA taking sides in particular conflicts and does not bar the WA from declaring general types of action to be illegal: Otherwise a LOT of the subsequently-passed resolutions would themselves have had to be declared illegal and discarded.
What it does contradict is GA Resolution #27 'Freedom of Assembly'. [one-sixth of GenSec]

Sorry there! Any other notable contradictions? I believe that GAR 35 goes against this. Please correct if wrong. (I’m attempting to learn GA basics).

[The New Nordic Union]

Fully supported, protests are heavily suppressed in Vichy Rich, often with force, as the public demonstration is outlawed in our nation you have the full support backing of Vichy Rich

'Just because the Nation of Vichy Rich is in blatant and open non-compliance with binding World Assembly legislation does not mean that we can overlook the aforementioned illegalities in the proposal.

It is for the delegation from Dutha Gropi to address the concerns raised by this Assembly, which they have not done yet in a substantial matter.'

— Katrin við Keldu, Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly

[Kenmoria]

Fully supported, protests are heavily suppressed in Vichy Rich, often with force, as the public demonstration is outlawed in our nation you have the full support backing of Vichy Rich

(OOC: Please don’t balatantly noncomply in this way with GA resolutions. That form of outlawing of protests violates multiple resolutions, the most obvious of which is Protecting Free Expression. There are ways of expressing disagreement with a past resolution that aren’t so annoying for the rest of us.

To the author, this isn’t going to pass, since it contradicts multiple extant resolutions. However, I recommend still staying around, as there are lots of topics that have not yet received GA legislation.)

[Elyreia]

Elyreian demonstrators are already afforded the protection of either a) their governing House of Origin and any private or local security forces or b) in lieu of the form, the Elyreian Princely Guard, in order to prevent being repressed with violence by the government or citizens alike.

We stand in opposition.

[Wallenburg]

"This proposal is highly illegal, and grossly offensive to the internationally appreciated principle of free speech. Wallenburg thrives on open political commentary and popular demonstrations. If it were up to me, I'd make public protest a civil duty."