NationStates

So recently, thanks to the thread for the legality challenge of Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations, I came across a resolution I thought I’d read before, which is, obviously, this one. I probably hadn’t read it before, though, because it made me uncertain in ways I don’t remember feeling. I’ve put down my objections in this repeal attempt, though I wonder what its chances of success truly are, given that GAR#27 must have survived a great deal of slings and arrows to have made it this far.

Obviously, since I don’t know how this is going to turn out yet, I haven’t written up a replacement. If this somehow seems viable, though, I definitely won’t submit it before a replacement is ready. Please don’t take this as me reserving the topic of a replacement; if anyone else would like to write one up, either with or without me, absolutely feel free to do it. I’d just appreciate it if you could tell me, though, so I’d know that there is a replacement waiting in the wings before putting forward a repeal.

(Once more, a link to the target resolution.)

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #27, Freedom of Assembly, to protect the freedoms of member nations to assemble and associate,

BELIEVING, in the same vein as the target resolution, that these freedoms are worthy of protection,

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,

UNDERSTANDING, further, that the above is possible because the target resolution only explicitly withdraws protection from such assemblies that ‘call for’ actions that would cause harm to innocents, but makes no exceptions for assemblies which, by their very presence, cause harm or inconvenience,

REGRETTING, conversely, that the target resolution fails to protect the freedoms not to participate in an assembly or associate with an organisation or group whose message one might not endorse,

FURTHER REGRETTING that the lack of the definition of ‘harm’ could allow oppressive regimes to restrict the freedom of assembly on the basis of minor, remote, or arguably irrelevant harm, such as emotional harm, psychological harm not amounting to trauma, and financial harm, among others,

DISMAYED that the phrasing of the protection withdrawal clause, by citing a call for ‘violence’, regardless of target, as one of the bases under which protection for assemblies will be withdrawn, could allow ideologically-opposed governments to clamp down on assemblies calling for criminal punishments involving physical harm, such as corporal or capital punishment,

TROUBLED, finally, that the target resolution does not make clear the extent to which it restricts the ability of the state to regulate the formation and behaviour of associations, such as the setting of membership conditions, beyond protecting the right of an individual to join said associations,

CONVINCED that this Assembly ought to introduce new legislation offering clearer and more comprehensive protections of the freedom to assemble and associate while making appropriate exceptions in the interests of public health, safety, and other important practical considerations,

HEREBY repeals GAR#27: Freedom of Assembly.

Co-authored by Bears Armed.

Thanks to everyone in advance for your comments and suggestions!

OOC:Looks good

OOC:

Iciaros wrote:REGRETTING, conversely, that the vagueness in the definition of ‘harm’ could allow oppressive regimes to restrict the freedom of assembly on the basis of minor or remote harm, particularly indeterminate emotional or psychological harm,

I think you could easily replace 'the vagueness in the definition of' with 'the absence of a definition of', or something similar. If you wanted to, you could even expand this further, by saying that governments could claim that, as an example, an environmental group calling for a diesel tax could cause financial harm to 'innocent people'.

Separately: GAR #27 'states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people', which I would take as meaning that assemblies can call for harm towards criminals and arguably ex-offenders. Which, of course, causes problems of its own. Maybe you could expand on the lack of distinction between the situation described in your 'FURTHER REGRETTING' clause and a group calling for unconditional harm towards convicts and ex-offenders?

'The reasoning in this proposal is clear and sound, and we're very happy to support this proposal pending the drafting of an improved replacement.'

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Looks good

OOC: Thank you!

Maowi wrote:OOC:

Iciaros wrote:REGRETTING, conversely, that the vagueness in the definition of ‘harm’ could allow oppressive regimes to restrict the freedom of assembly on the basis of minor or remote harm, particularly indeterminate emotional or psychological harm,

I think you could easily replace 'the vagueness in the definition of' with 'the absence of a definition of', or something similar. If you wanted to, you could even expand this further, by saying that governments could claim that, as an example, an environmental group calling for a diesel tax could cause financial harm to 'innocent people'.

Separately: GAR #27 'states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people', which I would take as meaning that assemblies can call for harm towards criminals and arguably ex-offenders. Which, of course, causes problems of its own. Maybe you could expand on the lack of distinction between the situation described in your 'FURTHER REGRETTING' clause and a group calling for unconditional harm towards convicts and ex-offenders?

'The reasoning in this proposal is clear and sound, and we're very happy to support this proposal pending the drafting of an improved replacement.'

Thank you for the advice! I'll look into expanding the harm clause. As for your second concern, I believe the phrasing of that protection withdrawal clause - withdrawing protection for violence, rioting and / OR actions harming innocent people - could allow states to withdraw protection where violence is advocated at all, since it is only necessary that any one of the three conditions are met. Well, that was my interpretation, at least.

Iciaros wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Looks good

OOC: Thank you!

Maowi wrote:OOC:



I think you could easily replace 'the vagueness in the definition of' with 'the absence of a definition of', or something similar. If you wanted to, you could even expand this further, by saying that governments could claim that, as an example, an environmental group calling for a diesel tax could cause financial harm to 'innocent people'.

Separately: GAR #27 'states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people', which I would take as meaning that assemblies can call for harm towards criminals and arguably ex-offenders. Which, of course, causes problems of its own. Maybe you could expand on the lack of distinction between the situation described in your 'FURTHER REGRETTING' clause and a group calling for unconditional harm towards convicts and ex-offenders?

'The reasoning in this proposal is clear and sound, and we're very happy to support this proposal pending the drafting of an improved replacement.'

Thank you for the advice! I'll look into expanding the harm clause. As for your second concern, I believe the phrasing of that protection withdrawal clause - withdrawing protection for violence, rioting and / OR actions harming innocent people - could allow states to withdraw protection where violence is advocated at all, since it is only necessary that any one of the three conditions are met. Well, that was my interpretation, at least.

"If all three conditions are met, then the protections kick in as surely as if one kick in. There isn't a magic loophole when all three exist. That isn't how "or" works."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"If all three conditions are met, then the protections kick in as surely as if one kick in. There isn't a magic loophole when all three exist. That isn't how "or" works."

OOC: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Maowi's objection was based on the idea that if all three conditions are met, the protections for freedom of assembly and association are withdrawn, as per Clause 3. My argument is that if just one of the conditions are met, the protections will still be withdrawn. My belief is that because of the 'or', the position if one condition is met is the same as if three are met, not that three conditions being met leads to a different outcome. I apologise if I've misunderstood you.

Iciaros wrote:OOC: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Maowi's objection was based on the idea that if all three conditions are met, the protections for freedom of assembly and association are withdrawn, as per Clause 3. My argument is that if just one of the conditions are met, the protections will still be withdrawn. My belief is that because of the 'or', the position if one condition is met is the same as if three are met, not that three conditions being met leads to a different outcome. I apologise if I've misunderstood you.

OOC: My argument was more based on a distinction between violence and harm. Given that the two are stated separately in the resolution, I'd say they're being considered separate things - with violence probably as a subset of harm, maybe as physical harm, I'd guess. So I was saying that if a group was advocating non-physical harm towards criminals and ex-offenders, such as harassment, they'd be protected, because the harm is not directed at "innocent people". This seems inconsistent to say the least, so may be worth commenting on?

The recent discussion has led me to consider a repeal-&=replace for GAR #27, too, but I was waiting to see other GenSec members' opinions on some questions raised there -- about how far "assembly" includes forming actual organisations -- before posting anything.

Maowi wrote:

Iciaros wrote:OOC: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Maowi's objection was based on the idea that if all three conditions are met, the protections for freedom of assembly and association are withdrawn, as per Clause 3. My argument is that if just one of the conditions are met, the protections will still be withdrawn. My belief is that because of the 'or', the position if one condition is met is the same as if three are met, not that three conditions being met leads to a different outcome. I apologise if I've misunderstood you.

OOC: My argument was more based on a distinction between violence and harm. Given that the two are stated separately in the resolution, I'd say they're being considered separate things - with violence probably as a subset of harm, maybe as physical harm, I'd guess. So I was saying that if a group was advocating non-physical harm towards criminals and ex-offenders, such as harassment, they'd be protected, because the harm is not directed at "innocent people". This seems inconsistent to say the least, so may be worth commenting on?

OOC: Ah, I see. Apologies for misunderstanding. That's a really good point, I might add that in as another point in the next draft.

Bears Armed wrote:The recent discussion has led me to consider a repeal-&=replace for GAR #27, too, but I was waiting to see other GenSec members' opinions on some questions raised there -- about how far "assembly" includes forming actual organisations -- before posting anything.

OOC: Oh, I see! If you would like to do the repeal-and-replace instead, I would be more than happy to discontinue this draft, or if you'd just like to do the replace part I would also be more than happy to sit back and let you go ahead. Though I suppose that would depend on what the eventual GenSec opinion is on how much GAR#27 protects the formation and functioning of organisations?

“I support this; this is a remarkably well-argued repeal. Your ‘convinced’ clause is a little strange, since you personally can not guarantee the replacement of GA 27, so ‘and will’ looks slightly presumptive, but that is a minor quibble.”

Iciaros wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:The recent discussion has led me to consider a repeal-&=replace for GAR #27, too, but I was waiting to see other GenSec members' opinions on some questions raised there -- about how far "assembly" includes forming actual organisations -- before posting anything.

OOC: Oh, I see! If you would like to do the repeal-and-replace instead, I would be more than happy to discontinue this draft, or if you'd just like to do the replace part I would also be more than happy to sit back and let you go ahead. Though I suppose that would depend on what the eventual GenSec opinion is on how much GAR#27 protects the formation and functioning of organisations?

If going ahead does seem advisable, maybe we could work together on this?

.

Dontriptia wrote:Our delegation is opposed to this repeal for one reason: it's obvious that this is not about "emergency services", but rather forcing the State to police the internal practices of religious organizations.

'The delegation from Iciaros has scarcely participated in that debate and I find it odd that you should jump to such a conclusion so quickly. I believe they intend to draft a replacement which solves the obvious problems with this resolution.'

Against. Does nobody else here remember the clusterfuck that was the repeal and botched replacement that was GAR 438?

Grenartia wrote:Against. Does nobody else here remember the clusterfuck that was the repeal and botched replacement that was GAR 438?

What does that resolution have to do with this one, and it's potential replacement?

Old Hope wrote:

Grenartia wrote:Against. Does nobody else here remember the clusterfuck that was the repeal and botched replacement that was GAR 438?

What does that resolution have to do with this one, and it's potential replacement?

OOC:Good question.

Old Hope wrote:

Grenartia wrote:Against. Does nobody else here remember the clusterfuck that was the repeal and botched replacement that was GAR 438?

What does that resolution have to do with this one, and it's potential replacement?

Similar situations.

Grenartia wrote:

Old Hope wrote:What does that resolution have to do with this one, and it's potential replacement?

Similar situations.

(OOC: GA #375 was repealed for ideological reasons and the desire for a ban on capital punishment. It’s replacement was designed to fulfill this ideological mandate by banning the death penalty in all but name, and preamble. On the other hand, this repeal is targeting the execution of GA #028 and shouldn’t have too controversial a replacement. There are broad similarities, but major differences.)

Kenmoria wrote:“I support this; this is a remarkably well-argued repeal. Your ‘convinced’ clause is a little strange, since you personally can not guarantee the replacement of GA 27, so ‘and will’ looks slightly presumptive, but that is a minor quibble.”

OOC: Thank you! The 'convinced' clause was my attempt at doing something I've seen other repeal-and-replace efforts do, like Ransium's Repeal Endangered Species Protection which had the clause "Confident that replacement legislation which builds upon the positive legacy of Endangered Species Protection will be put in place rapidly". Basically the clause signalling that the 'replace' part of repeal and replace is intended and imminent. I'll try to rework it to be more appropriate.

Bears Armed wrote:

Iciaros wrote:
OOC: Oh, I see! If you would like to do the repeal-and-replace instead, I would be more than happy to discontinue this draft, or if you'd just like to do the replace part I would also be more than happy to sit back and let you go ahead. Though I suppose that would depend on what the eventual GenSec opinion is on how much GAR#27 protects the formation and functioning of organisations?

If going ahead does seem advisable, maybe we could work together on this?

OOC: If you're okay with that, that would be fine! Just keep me updated on what you would like to do.

Dontriptia wrote:Our delegation is opposed to this repeal for one reason: it's obvious that this is not about "emergency services", but rather forcing the State to police the internal practices of religious organizations.

"Rest assured, learned ambassador, we have no such intentions. In the first place it would be absurd to compel a state to interfere in religious affairs. In the second place, limiting the freedom of religious organisations to do as they please is not a concern in this repeal attempt. We hope that our willingness to work with the delegation from Bears Armed, which has defended the interpretation of the target resolution that protects such freedom, should demonstrate our sincerity in this matter."

Kenmoria wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Similar situations.

(OOC: GA #375 was repealed for ideological reasons and the desire for a ban on capital punishment. It’s replacement was designed to fulfill this ideological mandate by banning the death penalty in all but name, and preamble. On the other hand, this repeal is targeting the execution of GA #028 and shouldn’t have too controversial a replacement. There are broad similarities, but major differences.)

OOC: If that's an accurate representation of what went down with GAR#375 (I'm not sure, because I wasn't watching that very closely), then yes, I believe Kenmoria is correct. This repeal is designed to make way for a replacement that has the same goal as the original, just better-executed.

Iciaros wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“I support this; this is a remarkably well-argued repeal. Your ‘convinced’ clause is a little strange, since you personally can not guarantee the replacement of GA 27, so ‘and will’ looks slightly presumptive, but that is a minor quibble.”

OOC: Thank you! The 'convinced' clause was my attempt at doing something I've seen other repeal-and-replace efforts do, like Ransium's Repeal Endangered Species Protection which had the clause "Confident that replacement legislation which builds upon the positive legacy of Endangered Species Protection will be put in place rapidly". Basically the clause signalling that the 'replace' part of repeal and replace is intended and imminent. I'll try to rework it to be more appropriate.

Bears Armed wrote:If going ahead does seem advisable, maybe we could work together on this?

OOC: If you're okay with that, that would be fine! Just keep me updated on what you would like to do.

Dontriptia wrote:Our delegation is opposed to this repeal for one reason: it's obvious that this is not about "emergency services", but rather forcing the State to police the internal practices of religious organizations.

"Rest assured, learned ambassador, we have no such intentions. In the first place it would be absurd to compel a state to interfere in religious affairs. In the second place, limiting the freedom of religious organisations to do as they please is not a concern in this repeal attempt. We hope that our willingness to work with the delegation from Bears Armed, which has defended the interpretation of the target resolution that protects such freedom, should demonstrate our sincerity in this matter."

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: GA #375 was repealed for ideological reasons and the desire for a ban on capital punishment. It’s replacement was designed to fulfill this ideological mandate by banning the death penalty in all but name, and preamble. On the other hand, this repeal is targeting the execution of GA #028 and shouldn’t have too controversial a replacement. There are broad similarities, but major differences.)

OOC: If that's an accurate representation of what went down with GAR#375 (I'm not sure, because I wasn't watching that very closely), then yes, I believe Kenmoria is correct. This repeal is designed to make way for a replacement that has the same goal as the original, just better-executed.

Sure, but the anti-freedom of assembly nations will hijack your good intentions to pass this appeal, and then subsequently block the passage of your replacement.

"This is a well-written and logically sound repeal; therefore, our delegation fully endorses this resolution, especially given that there is a high likelihood of a replacement attempt by the authoring delegation in conjunction with the venerable delegation of Bears Armed."

Grenartia wrote:
Sure, but the anti-freedom of assembly nations will hijack your good intentions to pass this appeal, and then subsequently block the passage of your replacement.

OOC: Are there that many of them? I was under the impression that freedom of assembly was one of those things the WA would definitely vote for. Is the danger actually high that it might be vot

Gebietersland wrote:"This is a well-written and logically sound repeal; therefore, our delegation fully endorses this resolution, especially given that there is a high likelihood of a replacement attempt by the authoring delegation in conjunction with the venerable delegation of Bears Armed."

"Thank you, Ambassador, we certainly appreciate your support."

---

OOC: In any case, I've now put in Draft 2. Mainly minor changes, tweaking the last clause and the clause about the lack of definition of 'harm'. I have definitely taken Maowi's concern about the inconsistency between encouraging non-physical harm against convicts versus the rest of society, but I'm not especially sure where to put that in, since it seems more like a quirk than an unarguable flaw. It will definitely go into the replacement proposal, if I end up playing a part in writing it.

Iciaros wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Sure, but the anti-freedom of assembly nations will hijack your good intentions to pass this appeal, and then subsequently block the passage of your replacement.

OOC: Are there that many of them? I was under the impression that freedom of assembly was one of those things the WA would definitely vote for. Is the danger actually high that it might be vot

I'd say it is high.

“In your ‘regretting’ clause, I think you may want find a better word choice than ‘remote’. You are either using it to refer to harm a long way away, which in my opinion should count just as mush as harm back home, or a low probability of harm, in which case it is an incorrect usage as ‘remote’ can refer only to a probability directly, not to the object of that possibility.”

Grenartia wrote:

Iciaros wrote:
OOC: Are there that many of them? I was under the impression that freedom of assembly was one of those things the WA would definitely vote for. Is the danger actually high that it might be vot

I'd say it is high.

(OOC: I don’t think it is that high, as a lot of the delegates won’t go for a law that doesn’t guarantee freedoms enough. Nevertheless, that is problem that should be argued when the possibility of a replacement is imminent, not before that.)

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.