[Draft] Repeal (and replace) GAR#27: Freedom of Assembly

[Bears Armed]

OOC
I've sent a copy of the Repeal draft that I'd already produced independently to Iciarios, with permission to use any bits of it that they like and to post it here.
The first draft for my suggested replacement is at viewtopic.php?f=9&t=464215 .

[Iciaros]

OOC: Thank you very much to Bears Armed for the suggestions, which brings us now to Draft 3 (which incorporates two additional arguments). Bears Armed has also been credited as co-author.

[Marxist Germany]

Considering the importance of GAR 27, I’m personally not willing to support a repeal until I can have a much clearer idea of what would be replacing it.

OOC:Bears armed is writing up a better replacement.

[Battlion]

Considering the importance of GAR 27, I’m personally not willing to support a repeal until I can have a much clearer idea of what would be replacing it.

OOC:Bears armed is writing up a better replacement.

I’ve seen it, and I’m not remotely happy with it.

So until then, i’m Opposed to repeal as well.

[Kenmoria]

“I know that the replacement should be debated in that chamber, but I can’t support any repeal that has such restrictions on a government controlling religion. I would support a replacement that protects the right to assembly, but it one that doesn’t include the restrictions so praised in this repeal.”

[Araraukar]

I’ve seen it, and I’m not remotely happy with it.

So until then, i’m Opposed to repeal as well.

OOC: ^This.

I'd also like the author to tell me exactly what part of the target resolution causes this: "CONCERNED, however, that the manner in which the target resolution has codified these protections allows individuals to assemble in ways that indirectly cause harm or inconvenience, such as by obstructing the movement of emergency services and law enforcement, and obstructing the movement of non-participants in or through the area of assembly,"?

[Iciaros]

OOC: I understand how you all feel. I don't know what the specific rules and etiquette around topic reservations are, but I personally think it would be nice if there multiple different replacement proposals written by different people so people could get the best replacement possible. I obviously have no intention of submitting a repeal attempt until there is a replacement that people are happy with, and multiple options would probably be conducive for that.

On Ara's specific query:

I'd also like the author to tell me exactly what part of the target resolution causes this: "CONCERNED, however, that the manner in which the target resolution has codified these protections allows individuals to assemble in ways that indirectly cause harm or inconvenience, such as by obstructing the movement of emergency services and law enforcement, and obstructing the movement of non-participants in or through the area of assembly,"?

GAR#27 protects the right of people to assemble, and said protection is only withdrawn under the exceptions in Clause 3. Those exceptions only pertain to the message of the assembly. Without a separate exception so given, it seems that assemblies that obstruct movement in and out of an area are also protected by GAR#27, provided they do not call for violence, rioting or harm in the process of their obstruction.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I don't know what the specific rules and etiquette around topic reservations are, but I personally think it would be nice if there multiple different replacement proposals written by different people so people could get the best replacement possible.

OOC: There are no topic reservations of any kind, but the most likely reason you won't see multiple replacements is that people don't want to replace it and are instead happy with it the way it now is.

GAR#27 protects the right of people to assemble, and said protection is only withdrawn under the exceptions in Clause 3. Those exceptions only pertain to the message of the assembly. Without a separate exception so given, it seems that assemblies that obstruct movement in and out of an area are also protected by GAR#27, provided they do not call for violence, rioting or harm in the process of their obstruction.

Also, I completely fail to see how this explains emergency services being blocked, given that in RL in nations with the same assembly freedoms, people have no problem stepping aside for emergency services. So what's your justification on that not being a thing in NS? (I know that RL =/= NS, but RL is usually a pretty good guide to people behaviour when it comes to existing examples.) EDIT: I'd also say that any assembly stopping emergency services from getting to where they need to, would instantly become harmful and thus no longer protected.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I understand how you all feel. I don't know what the specific rules and etiquette around topic reservations are, but I personally think it would be nice if there multiple different replacement proposals written by different people so people could get the best replacement possible. I obviously have no intention of submitting a repeal attempt until there is a replacement that people are happy with, and multiple options would probably be conducive for that.

OOC; The only "rules and etiquette around topic reservations" are that topics (and probably even titles, if those are "obvious" ones for the topics) cannot be reserved but that the rule against Plagiarism applies.
In fact, my very first attempt at rafting a proposal (late 2005, for the NS-UN, on rights for non-human sapients) triggered the creation of a rival proposal which reached the floor while mine was still under work.. and was defeated, after which I put that topic on hold for a while.

[Iciaros]

Also, I completely fail to see how this explains emergency services being blocked, given that in RL in nations with the same assembly freedoms, people have no problem stepping aside for emergency services. So what's your justification on that not being a thing in NS? (I know that RL =/= NS, but RL is usually a pretty good guide to people behaviour when it comes to existing examples.)

OOC: I'm not an expert, but I think (and a quick Google search does turn up quite a few results) that blocking roads, highways, and traffic/transportation generally can and has been used as a tactic to force the targets of certain assemblies to accede to their demands. I don't know for sure, but I'm going to presume that some, if not most, countries do have certain explicit laws to allow such assemblies to be dispersed, or else they wouldn't be able to disperse them. The problem, in my eyes, is that the WA lacks a similar exemption through GAR#27.

In any case, I think the feedback so far, regardless of the viability of Bears Armed's replacement, is that GAR#27 does have its flaws. It may take a more agreeable replacement proposal for a repeal-and-replace to go through, but people could be more satisfied with what might eventually germinate. (I probably used that word wrong, but my brain is a bit too sleepy to correct it.)

OOC: There are no topic reservations of any kind...

OOC; The only "rules and etiquette around topic reservations" are that topics (and probably even titles, if those are "obvious" ones for the topics) cannot be reserved but that the rule against Plagiarism applies.

OOC: Ah, thanks for the clarification!

[Bears Armed]

Also, I completely fail to see how this explains emergency services being blocked, given that in RL in nations with the same assembly freedoms, people have no problem stepping aside for emergency services. So what's your justification on that not being a thing in NS? (I know that RL =/= NS, but RL is usually a pretty good guide to people behaviour when it comes to existing examples.) EDIT: I'd also say that any assembly stopping emergency services from getting to where they need to, would instantly become harmful and thus no longer protected.

OOC
In the RL UK, at least in the UK during the 'Winter of Discontent' just before Mrs Thatcher became PM, there were a few incidents when NHS ancillary staff picketing at hospitals actually refused to let ambulances past... and some of the 'mass pickets' of that era were too crowded to get out of emergency services' paths even if they'd wanted to do so.
And protesters who chain or (as some 'Extinction Rebellion' members did in London recently did) glue themselves to things -- maybe even to the road surface -- can't step aside very easily either.

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘regretting’ clause appears to imply that emotional and financial harm can never be relevant or useful, in spite of the fact that both of these can ruin a person’s life. Although I acknowledge that physical harm may be a more pressing issue, you may wish to reword that statement.”

[Araraukar]

OOC
And protesters who chain or (as some 'Extinction Rebellion' members did in London recently did) glue themselves to things -- maybe even to the road surface -- can't step aside very easily either.

OOC: Glue? With what?

In a more general sense, any kind of gathering stopping emergency services from getting to people in need of help would mean that the gathering was then by definition a harmful one (denying help from people needing help counts as harming them - just like neglecting to get a child medical attention when they need it, is child abuse) and thus no longer protected.

I would suggest changing "obstructing" to "hampering" - that is, instead of making it impossible (without tear gas coming into play), making it slower (people needing to move out of the way). Slowing down a fire truck or an ambulance can be just as deadly to the people in need of help, but would be more in line with reasonable reading of the target resolution.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
And protesters who chain or (as some 'Extinction Rebellion' members did in London recently did) glue themselves to things -- maybe even to the road surface -- can't step aside very easily either.

OOC: Glue? With what?

OOC
Well, they claimed that it was an "environment-friendly" glue...

[Kenmoria]

“You use a different way of referring to GA resolutions in your first and last clauses, so you may want to standardise one format throughout your proposal.”

[Iciaros]

OOC: Thanks for your suggestions! I'll work them in to the next draft.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Glue? With what?

OOC
Well, they claimed that it was an "environment-friendly" glue...

OOC: Then it shouldn't be a big hassle to peel them off. I'm still seriously amused by the mental imagery...