[DRAFT] ‘Freedom of Assembly and Association’

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Something that seems to always be missed in this talk of 'oh in my RP god was down at the pub last sunday we KNOW he's real', is what good reason is there to exclude any god from the law? Hell, if there is literally a god at the head of the church, occasionally showing up to chat and smite a few people, that's a really good reason to regulate the church like any other private industry, and I sincerely hope that we can agree that you shouldn't be able to put up 'we don't serve f*gs' signs at the local supermarket.

Long story short, I don't see why being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, form people out of clay, or throw lightning from mountaintops, should make you above the law.

[Uan aa Boa]

"The main potential problem with “not arrest or prosecution” in that situation comes from the [almost certain] existence of some WA member nations which lack the distinction between ‘criminal law’ and ‘civil law’ which exists in — for example — the ‘RealWorld’ nations called ‘UK’ and ‘USA’. Anyhows, hwhat do you think of the changes that we are now suggesting?”

I'm wholly satisfied with the protection of the right to strike. I do wonder, however, if this draft allows a great variety of things that might be illegal in some nations to be safely done so long as multiple citizens assemble for the purpose. Slander/defamation, drug use, buying and selling of goods, gambling, prostitution, animal cruelty and many, many other activities slip through the net of exceptions to Clause One. You might deliberately intend this to be the case where the activities cannot be shown to be directly harmful, but delegates should be aware of the extent of the intrusion into national sovereignty.

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: Please try to remember that, regardless of the situation in your own nation or even the probable situation in RL, there are nations in NationsStates that do have verifiable proof for the existence of various supernatural elements — possibly even extending to the existence of certain deities — in their role-played realities. Even though I myself OOC would probably be classed as either an atheist or an agnostic [depending on precisely how one defines those two terms], Bears Armed is one such nation — although the precise nature of some of those elements is open to debate — and they will need more than just dismissive statements from a few foreigners to “disprove” those facts…
*snip*
On the other hand, removing that clause (as some people here want) would leave organisations open to governments enforcing any discriminatory policies that they could justify as having “compelling practical purposes” on ALL organisations within their jurisdictions, which would be much harder for people to escape… and neither I on an OOC basis nor the Bears IC would be happy about not just ”discrimination enabling” but also “tyranny-enabling” in that way.
To use one example, what if a nation’s government believes in a religion that considers people of some particular type (e.g. redheads) to be “accursed by the Goddess” and — possibly even with some proof of their deity’s existence locally (even though they obviously can’t make that canon right across all of NS) — decrees that there is therefore a ‘compelling practical purpose’ for excluding people of that type from membership in all organisations within that nation? Impossible under the current draft with its ‘Article Three’, but possible under a version of this proposed resolution from which that Article has been removed...

OOC: You seem to be arguing against yourself. On one hand claiming that your RP reality must be honored, on the other ridiculing just such RP (actual deities actually saying stuff) as a compelling reason. Which do you want it to be?

I wasn’t trying to demand that my RP be “honoured” to the extent that it should be canon in everybody else’s RP too, just trying to remind people that it’s canon among the Bears IC themselves so that they’re unlikely to consider arguments that simply dismiss this factor out-of-hand as worthy of consideration… rather like you did in this forum, not long ago, about your nation’s concept of economics.
Where’s the “ridicule” that you saw in my comment that, in the context of other nations’ own RP canons, some other nations’ laws really might be divine commandments? Did the strength of your own disbelief in the truth of any religious views in RL lead you subconsciously to assume that I must really believe the same to be true even in all NS nations’ RP canons, and thus to assume that I was saying those governments’ claims must therefore be merely pretence? If so, then you were working on a false assumption…
Let’s try an example that isn’t based on religion for a situation which the current draft’s Article Three would block but which removing that clause as some people here are demanding would allow, instead:
1/ Nation ‘Wherever’ makes extensive use of IQ tests, of the general kind that was quite common in the USA a few decades ago;
2/ At least some of the people operating those tests interpret the results as showing members of a particular ‘racial’ minority to be “mentally inferior”, rather than just as showing that differences in education available — and maybe some cultural factors — had left members of that minority less well prepared than members of the majority group [on average] for such tests… which did happen in the RL USA.
3/ Wherever’s national government decides that that “proven mental inferiority” constitutes a ‘compelling practical purpose’ [under GAR#35] for excluding members of that minority from membership in all ‘political’ organisations and from holding office in any other organisations (except, perhaps, in ones containing only members of that ‘racial’ minority) as well.
Do you have a reply to my basic argument here that allowing governments to make those decisions for everybody within their nations could potentially be at least as ‘discrimination-enabling’ as letting the relevant organisations do so separately for themselves and would be ‘tyranny-enabling’ as well?”

OOC: Something that seems to always be missed in this talk of 'oh in my RP god was down at the pub last sunday we KNOW he's real', is what good reason is there to exclude any god from the law? Hell, if there is literally a god at the head of the church, occasionally showing up to chat and smite a few people, that's a really good reason to regulate the church like any other private industry, and I sincerely hope that we can agree that you shouldn't be able to put up 'we don't serve f*gs' signs at the local supermarket.

Long story short, I don't see why being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, form people out of clay, or throw lightning from mountaintops, should make you above the law.

“It might be interesting to see you try saying that to one of Them in person, especially somewhere in one of “Their” nations and — just in case —away from the Weapons Neutralisers… If one could observe from a reasonably safe distance, anyhows.”

"The main potential problem with “not arrest or prosecution” in that situation comes from the [almost certain] existence of some WA member nations which lack the distinction between ‘criminal law’ and ‘civil law’ which exists in — for example — the ‘RealWorld’ nations called ‘UK’ and ‘USA’. Anyhows, hwhat do you think of the changes that we are now suggesting?”

I'm wholly satisfied with the protection of the right to strike. I do wonder, however, if this draft allows a great variety of things that might be illegal in some nations to be safely done so long as multiple citizens assemble for the purpose. Slander/defamation, drug use, buying and selling of goods, gambling, prostitution, animal cruelty and many, many other activities slip through the net of exceptions to Clause One. You might deliberately intend this to be the case where the activities cannot be shown to be directly harmful, but delegates should be aware of the extent of the intrusion into national sovereignty.

Fair question. I'd think that quite a few of those categories would count as 'economic', and therefore unprotected (buying & selling of goods, obviously; gambling, and prostitution, too), and that animal cruelty could reasonably be considered either damage to others' property or environmental damage: Okay, I suppose that that would still leave the possibility of people being unnecessarily cruel to domesticated animals that were their property, so if I can free-up enough extra characters to use (probably by taking the suggestion to replace every “Article ‘Number’ ” with just an unadorned number…) then I will add “otherwise-illegal harm to animals” to the list in that sub-clause as well. Drug use without an economic transaction involved is slightly trickier, but if the drug genuinely causes direct physical harm to the users then it's already covered here as well... and if it doesn't do so then I don't see why, for example, an anti-religious government should be allowed to get around the general protection of religion by banning drugs that are used in small & basically harmless purposes for "essential" sacramental reasons...
Can you come up with reasonably concise wording to prevent slander/defamation without giving repressive governments an excuse to suppress honest criticism of their other actions?
(EDIT =>) As this proposal would only apply "subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force", slander & defamation are already covered by the existing resolution GAR# 436 'Protecting Free Expression'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New draft probably to be posted tomorrow.

[Kenmoria]

“Article five would appear to prohibit completely unintentional monopolies, even when there isn’t suppression of other movements involved. When, for instance, a religion is introduced to a nation, it may very well hold a monopoly over being the only organisation of that faith for a number of years, without shutting down other groups. Since you ban monopolies themselves, and don’t allow any exceptions for natural ones, this would be prohibited by your proposal.”

[Kowani]

OOC:
Something that seems to always be missed in this talk of 'oh in my RP god was down at the pub last sunday we KNOW he's real', is what good reason is there to exclude any god from the law? Hell, if there is literally a god at the head of the church, occasionally showing up to chat and smite a few people, that's a really good reason to regulate the church like any other private industry, and I sincerely hope that we can agree that you shouldn't be able to put up 'we don't serve f*gs' signs at the local supermarket.

Long story short, I don't see why being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, form people out of clay, or throw lightning from mountaintops, should make you above the law.

OOC: I’m not entirely sure how we’d enforce the law on a god. Unless it was something shitty like the “God of Clay Pots”, ‘cause I don’t think Quezecoatl would exactly like some puny mortal telling him that his human sacrifice is now subject to health regulations.

[Aclion]

OOC:
Something that seems to always be missed in this talk of 'oh in my RP god was down at the pub last sunday we KNOW he's real', is what good reason is there to exclude any god from the law?

Threat of fire and brimstone is one hell of a compelling practical purpose.

[Araraukar]

I wasn’t trying to demand that my RP be “honoured” to the extent that it should be canon in everybody else’s RP too, just trying to remind people that it’s canon among the Bears IC themselves so that they’re unlikely to consider arguments that simply dismiss this factor out-of-hand as worthy of consideration… rather like you did in this forum, not long ago, about your nation’s concept of economics.

OOC: I won't get in the way of your RP or your reasoning for creative compliance, which is what I expect others to do to me as well, but I'm not trying to write my excuses into a proposal.

Did the strength of your own disbelief in the truth of any religious views in RL

You assume that being an atheist means not believing in anything "supernatural". I have more trouble with organized religions (exactly because they're used to discriminate, harass and oppress minorities) than faith. Everyone's free to believe whatever they want. That doesn't mean they should be free to do whatever they want.

Do you have a reply to my basic argument here that allowing governments to make those decisions for everybody within their nations could potentially be at least as ‘discrimination-enabling’ as letting the relevant organisations do so separately for themselves and would be ‘tyranny-enabling’ as well?”

I'm fairly sure you must be confusing me for someone else, as I'm the one that keeps saying CoCR's antidiscrimination parts should be read much stronger than they usually are.

OOC:

“It might be interesting to see you try saying that to one of Them in person, especially somewhere in one of “Their” nations and — just in case —away from the Weapons Neutralisers… If one could observe from a reasonably safe distance, anyhows.”

You know that was OOC, right? In IC I wouldn't make bets against a civilization I know has destroyed inhabited planets with their "planet-killing gun"...

OOC: I’m not entirely sure how we’d enforce the law on a god. Unless it was something shitty like the “God of Clay Pots”, ‘cause I don’t think Quezecoatl would exactly like some puny mortal telling him that his human sacrifice is now subject to health regulations.

OOC: I think the point was more about "why should the WA codify fear of a local god into a resolution"? Whether the god is local in the player's (who RPs them as being real) opinion or not doesn't matter, because other players can't be forced to acknowledge that RP as real in their RP realities.

There's also the "if all gods are real, what do you do with disagreeing commandments?" problem. Especially as monotheistic gods who tend to have some kind of "there are no other gods, bow down to me alone" thing in their guidelines to their believers.

[Bears Armed]

“Article five would appear to prohibit completely unintentional monopolies, even when there isn’t suppression of other movements involved. When, for instance, a religion is introduced to a nation, it may very well hold a monopoly over being the only organisation of that faith for a number of years, without shutting down other groups. Since you ban monopolies themselves, and don’t allow any exceptions for natural ones, this would be prohibited by your proposal.”

"Hr'mm, maybeso there is potential for confusion there: If we replace "may legally hold a monopoly" with "hold a monopoly by law" would that, in your opinion, be enough?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I wasn’t trying to demand that my RP be “honoured” to the extent that it should be canon in everybody else’s RP too, just trying to remind people that it’s canon among the Bears IC themselves so that they’re unlikely to consider arguments that simply dismiss this factor out-of-hand as worthy of consideration… rather like you did in this forum, not long ago, about your nation’s concept of economics.

OOC: I won't get in the way of your RP or your reasoning for creative compliance, which is what I expect others to do to me as well, but I'm not trying to write my excuses into a proposal.

OOC
I try to write my proposals, as I vote on them, from an IC viewpoint. If we have to write purely from an OOC viewpoint here then, as passing resolutions has no effect on the OOC world, what's the point?

Did the strength of your own disbelief in the truth of any religious views in RL

You assume that being an atheist means not believing in anything "supernatural". I have more trouble with organized religions (exactly because they're used to discriminate, harass and oppress minorities) than faith. Everyone's free to believe whatever they want. That doesn't mean they should be free to do whatever they want.

OOC
Then why did you assume that my mentioning the possibility of some nations really being told by their deities IC what to do was meant to "ridicule" those nations?

Do you have a reply to my basic argument here that allowing governments to make those decisions for everybody within their nations could potentially be at least as ‘discrimination-enabling’ as letting the relevant organisations do so separately for themselves and would be ‘tyranny-enabling’ as well?”

I'm fairly sure you must be confusing me for someone else, as I'm the one that keeps saying CoCR's antidiscrimination parts should be read much stronger than they usually are.

OOC
The fact remains, unless & until GenSec does decide to read the CoCR in the way that you'd like, allowing governments to make such decisions about all of the organizations within their nations gives them potential power to set discriminatory policies there on a significantly wider scale than leaving those decisions to the organisations separately -- along with the restricitons on compulsory membership and monopolising roles -- would do.

OOC: I think the point was more about "why should the WA codify fear of a local god into a resolution"? Whether the god is local in the player's (who RPs them as being real) opinion or not doesn't matter, because other players can't be forced to acknowledge that RP as real in their RP realities.

OOC
But the proposal doesn't "codify fear of a local god into a resolution", it just leaves it up to the locals within the separate member nations to decide whether to codify respect for their own local gods into how they handle this.

[Chairman Cities]

Good Morning From Diplomatic Embassies In EUSTATES After Being Made Aware Of Such Draft And It's Contents My Offices Begin Looking Into The Draft In Depth { As Directed By The EUSTATES Chancellor} And The USCC State Department Issued An Vote Of "None Agreement" In Regards To the First Draft. Not With Prejudice Stated The EUSTATES Diplomacy Minister

[Bears Armed]

“Article six seems strangely precise about matters, particularly the two-thirds section. It is currently unclear whether you wish to say that those who are 66% the legal age must have the ability to decide religious or political matters, or whether you are allowing this to happen. In addition, particularly with religious matters, I think anyone who doesn’t believe in a god shouldn’t be forced to attend church by their parents, no matter the age.”

OOC
Oops! missed this one earlier.
I'm trying to say that governments can give minors over that threshold (now changed to 75%) the ability to decide -- or, although this probably isn't stated clearly enough there, minors above some other threshold of the government's choice between that particular one and the age of majority -- but otherwise it's up to the parents/guardians.
I chose the value to reflect both what seemed to me a likely age for being able to make "reasoned" decisions on the subject, using humans as baseline, and a safe enough age to leave those minors at home unsupervised for a few hours while their elders are at a meeting if the parents can't make other arrangements for their supervision in time. If we do not consider younger children competent enough to decide about going to school, or going on family holidays (or, taking things further along the slippery slope, to decide about continuing to live in their parents' homes) then i don't see why they should be considered competent to make decisions about church attendance either... and I am not going to make it possible for an infant who wants to watch cartoons one morning rather than going to church to keep parents who can't find a babysitter in time from going to church themselves.

[Uan aa Boa]

I'm wholly satisfied with the protection of the right to strike. I do wonder, however, if this draft allows a great variety of things that might be illegal in some nations to be safely done so long as multiple citizens assemble for the purpose. Slander/defamation, drug use, buying and selling of goods, gambling, prostitution, animal cruelty and many, many other activities slip through the net of exceptions to Clause One. You might deliberately intend this to be the case where the activities cannot be shown to be directly harmful, but delegates should be aware of the extent of the intrusion into national sovereignty.

Fair question. I'd think that quite a few of those categories would count as 'economic', and therefore unprotected (buying & selling of goods, obviously; gambling, and prostitution, too), and that animal cruelty could reasonably be considered either damage to others' property or environmental damage: Okay, I suppose that that would still leave the possibility of people being unnecessarily cruel to domesticated animals that were their property, so if I can free-up enough extra characters to use (probably by taking the suggestion to replace every “Article ‘Number’ ” with just an unadorned number…) then I will add “otherwise-illegal harm to animals” to the list in that sub-clause as well. Drug use without an economic transaction involved is slightly trickier, but if the drug genuinely causes direct physical harm to the users then it's already covered here as well... and if it doesn't do so then I don't see why, for example, an anti-religious government should be allowed to get around the general protection of religion by banning drugs that are used in small & basically harmless purposes for "essential" sacramental reasons...
Can you come up with reasonably concise wording to prevent slander/defamation without giving repressive governments an excuse to suppress honest criticism of their other actions?
(EDIT =>) As this proposal would only apply "subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force", slander & defamation are already covered by the existing resolution GAR# 436 'Protecting Free Expression'.

Fair points, and I note the inclusion of a clause on animal harm in the revised draft. I do feel that this continues to improve with each revision, but I do have a lingering concern around the issues I've been discussing.

What this proposal essentially does is provide a list of exceptions and then say that people can lawfully assemble in order to do anything that isn't on that list. Unless the Assembly takes a similar line regarding the actions of individuals there will remain situations in which people in certain nations can legally do something in an assembly that they cannot legally do on their own. With, I presume, no prospect of a resolution that says that individuals cannot be prevented from doing anything outside the scope of a list of specific exceptions this does seem a little odd.

I appreciate what this is trying to do in terms of legitimising protest and dissent - but wouldn't it make more sense to begin by protecting these at an individual level before moving on to deal with assemblies?

[Kenmoria]

“Article five would appear to prohibit completely unintentional monopolies, even when there isn’t suppression of other movements involved. When, for instance, a religion is introduced to a nation, it may very well hold a monopoly over being the only organisation of that faith for a number of years, without shutting down other groups. Since you ban monopolies themselves, and don’t allow any exceptions for natural ones, this would be prohibited by your proposal.”

"Hr'mm, maybeso there is potential for confusion there: If we replace "may legally hold a monopoly" with "hold a monopoly by law" would that, in your opinion, be enough?"

“Yes, I think that the proposed wording would be sufficient. So long as there is something showing that a purely natural monopoly isn’t prohibited, I have no issues with that clause.”

[Bears Armed]

OOC: I won't get in the way of your RP or your reasoning for creative compliance, which is what I expect others to do to me as well, but I'm not trying to write my excuses into a proposal.

OOC
I try to write my proposals, as I vote on them, from an IC viewpoint. If we have to write purely from an OOC viewpoint here then, as passing resolutions has no effect on the OOC world, what's the point?

Okay, so passing a GA resolution does cause small changes to the member nations’ stats, which those people who are actually bothered about these stats could consider to be an effect in OOC reality. The scale of those changes was considerably reduced a year or three ago, however, to bring one resolution passing more in line with answering one issue and I could answer a lot more issues (for multiple nations) if I wasn’t spending time drafting here instead… And if the stat changes are what people are really bothered about then the actual wording of proposals (as long as it fits the title and Category [etc] well enough for legality) shouldn’t really matter anyway.

“It might be interesting to see you try saying that to one of Them in person, especially somewhere in one of “Their” nations and — just in case —away from the Weapons Neutralisers… If one could observe from a reasonably safe distance, anyhows.”

You know that was OOC, right? In IC I wouldn't make bets against a civilization I know has destroyed inhabited planets with their "planet-killing gun"...

OOC
If they don’t recognise even the existence of deities then how likely is that their weapons (whether "planet-killing” or not) would actually be able to lock-on to deities as potential targets… especially if trying to do so with enough accuracy to avoid whichever of their politicians or diplomats was telling that deity face-to-face that they had to be subject to the mortals’ laws?

This proposal’s potential for increasing discrimination by organisations (although restricting potential for discrimination by governments), or their weapons’ potential for genocide, from an ethical viewpoint which of those is actually worse?

There's also the "if all gods are real, what do you do with disagreeing commandments?" problem.

OOC
Ask them to sort it out in the 'God of Thunder'-Dome: Two gods enter, one god leaves... preferably broadcast on a pay-per-view basis.

What this proposal essentially does is provide a list of exceptions and then say that people can lawfully assemble in order to do anything that isn't on that list. Unless the Assembly takes a similar line regarding the actions of individuals there will remain situations in which people in certain nations can legally do something in an assembly that they cannot legally do on their own. With, I presume, no prospect of a resolution that says that individuals cannot be prevented from doing anything outside the scope of a list of specific exceptions this does seem a little odd.

I appreciate what this is trying to do in terms of legitimising protest and dissent - but wouldn't it make more sense to begin by protecting these at an individual level before moving on to deal with assemblies?

That's a reasonable question. Individuals’ rights to promote causes are covered already by the existing resolution ‘Protecting Free Expression’. Which of the other rights that I recognise here for assemblies and organisations do you think specifically (a) would be relevant for individuals as well and (b) aren’t also covered already by existing resolutions, so that we can see whether I or anybody else wants to start work on that?


_____________________________________________________________________________


I think that sub-clause ‘1.a’ is enough to let governments continue regulating and even banning non-governmental military or paramilitary groups. Agreed?
Also regarding that sub-clause, do you think that replacing “non-sapient animals” with “non-sapient sentients” would be preferable?

I’m working on a fourth draft already: This was going to be just ‘Version 3.1’, but then the small changes became too numerous for the strike/red coding that I’d have used in that case to have looked anything but ugly.
The main functional differences so far are to clarify that the rule against organisations holding monopolies does not allow any organisations which are competing in some way with government agencies to demand recognition as government agencies, and to give non-governmental organisations explicit protection against non-consensual conversion into government agencies. Most of the other changes are just tinkering to get the length back down after those two additions.

[Kenmoria]

Also regarding that sub-clause, do you think that replacing “non-sapient animals” with “non-sapient sentients” would be preferable?

(OOC: If you want to save characters, you could change the whole subclause around so that it just targets sentiments, since harm to both non-sapient ones and sapient ones are currently restricted separately. Otherwise, ‘non-sapient sentients’ would work.)

[Araraukar]

There's also the "if all gods are real, what do you do with disagreeing commandments?" problem.

OOC
Ask them to sort it out in the 'God of Thunder'-Dome: Two gods enter, one god leaves... preferably broadcast on a pay-per-view basis.

OOC: ...I'd watch that. And thank damn you for completely derailing my thoughts...

Reason I'm arguing OOCly is that - believe it or not - I get to be more polite on the topic of religion that way. Araraukarian view of religion is not even as tolerant as that of the Imperium of Tinfect. And yes that's possible while following the existing resolutions.

As for planet-killing guns and gods, does the god die if you kill the people that worshipped it? If yes, you don't need to be able to aim at the god itself... Just wait until it's duking it out with other gods to find out which one of them is "the true god", and kill its followers meanwhile.

[Aclion]

OOC
Ask them to sort it out in the 'God of Thunder'-Dome: Two gods enter, one god leaves... preferably broadcast on a pay-per-view basis.

OOC: ...I'd watch that. And thank damn you for completely derailing my thoughts...

Reason I'm arguing OOCly is that - believe it or not - I get to be more polite on the topic of religion that way. Araraukarian view of religion is not even as tolerant as that of the Imperium of Tinfect. And yes that's possible while following the existing resolutions.

As for planet-killing guns and gods, does the god die if you kill the people that worshipped it? If yes, you don't need to be able to aim at the god itself... Just wait until it's duking it out with other gods to find out which one of them is "the true god", and kill its followers meanwhile.

I'm pretty sure killing people based on their religion is a violation of WA law.

[Araraukar]

I'm pretty sure killing people based on their religion is a violation of WA law.

OOC: ...but if gods are above the law, and might makes a god god, then anyone with the actual power to kill a whole planet can claim godhood and be excempt of it.

This is why Tinfect said gods shouldn't be considered to be above the law.

[Bears Armed]

Reason I'm arguing OOCly is that - believe it or not - I get to be more polite on the topic of religion that way. Araraukarian view of religion is not even as tolerant as that of the Imperium of Tinfect. And yes that's possible while following the existing resolutions.

Governments like that are one of the reasons why the Bears think that people & organisations need to given as much protection against governments (and not just for religious purposes, neither…) as possible...

________________________________________________________________________

The Fourth Draft is now posted. In addition to the changes already mentioned above, the former Article Two has switched places with the former Article Three and has also been expanded slightly so that it now specifically protects organisations as well as assemblies.

[Kenmoria]

“In 1a, it should be ‘people’s’ rather than ‘peoples’’, since you are describing the property of people in the sense of multiple persons, rather than the property of various peoples as groups of persons.”

[Bears Armed]

“In 1a, it should be ‘people’s’ rather than ‘peoples’’, since you are describing the property of people in the sense of multiple persons, rather than the property of various peoples as groups of persons.”

Oops! That was a typo, rather than intentional, and has now been fixed. Thank you.

[United Massachusetts]

We are in favour of this resolution, and will vote for it.

[Araraukar]

We are in favour of this resolution, and will vote for it.

OOC: ^Proves the point of religious nations looking to this for legitimization of their discriminatory practices.

To Bears: Is there a particular reason you're not using list code?

Also, why only physical harm to people? Also given that it only mentions "WA laws against environmental damage" rather than "pre-existing WA laws", it pretty much contradicts resolutions that specify restrictions on mental/emotional harm. The Child Abuse Ban comes to mind (something targeting children, rather than having children partaking), but also CoCR in general. Because I refuse to believe that you're trying to make it okay for a KKK gathering outside a church with mostly a black congregation, calling (possibly aided by sound amplification devices, to disrupt the service) the churchgoers by slurs I don't want to even type here, I'm viewing that as a mistake.

Additionally, I would like to see something about restrictions on "disrupting another, pre-announced and state-approved event" and letting states require notification of any gatherings that are likely to require re-routing of traffic. And requiring that the organizers provide access to emergency services at large gatherings. Just, you know, general basic safety rules, like what are in effect in RL.

Clause 4.d. - is that meant to be read so that your employment can be terminated because you don't want to partake a politicals gathering (because your personal morals don't like the idea of showing up in support of whatever cause it has, and you're actually a member of their political polar opposite party) your boss has decided to have an "employee bonding" thing in and said anyone not coming is fired, despite no mentions of political gatherings when they first took the job?

The exceptions in clause 5 seem to negate all the rest of the resolution. Is that intentional?

Clause 6 still has vague/confusing wording for the exception. Maybe instead of "except as", make it "except allowing" and maybe "states" instead of "governments"? (Also I think later in the sentence it's supposed to have "at least" instead of "least".)

Also the whole thing still allows brainwashing children (politically, ideologically or religiously, doesn't matter), so ICly for it for that reason, OOCly staunchly against.

[Kenmoria]

“2b and 2c still essentially mandate that member nations legalise discrimination for non-governmental entities. It doesn’t really matter that you ban legally-enforced monopolies, it isn’t acceptable to have a significant proportion of a member nation’s organisations be discriminatory in any way.

Suppose that just a third of the organisations in a state are discriminatory, that would still pose significant barriers to members of the group being discriminated against that, under your proposal, member states can do nothing to stop.”

[Bears Armed]

OOC

To Bears: Is there a particular reason you're not using list code?

I'm waiting until everything else is "complete" before adding that because I’m not practiced with using it and don't want to run the risk that changing the text after adding it might accidentally mess up the code.

Also, why only physical harm to people?

There are nations here whose governments would claim all practice and teaching of ideologies they dislike -- rival political views, religion, or whatever -- to be psychologically harmful, and use that excuse to ban it: I am not going to legitimize that oppression.

Also given that it only mentions "WA laws against environmental damage" rather than "pre-existing WA laws", it pretty much contradicts resolutions that specify restrictions on mental/emotional harm. The Child Abuse Ban comes to mind (something targeting children, rather than having children partaking), but also CoCR in general. Because I refuse to believe that you're trying to make it okay for a KKK gathering outside a church with mostly a black congregation, calling (possibly aided by sound amplification devices, to disrupt the service) the churchgoers by slurs I don't want to even type here, I'm viewing that as a mistake.

This explicitly says that it applies only "subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force”, and therefore doesn't try to contradict those: It over-rides parts of the COCR (by declaring that Freedom is a "compelling practical purpose" for upholding the rights listed here) without illegal Contradiction, but not all of that resolution... I'll take a look at 'Child Abuse Ban', but unless that also includes a "compelling practical purposes" clause I think that it would over-ride this. Even if your KKK example doesn’t fall under ‘1.d’ it would presumably be covered by 'Protecting Free Expression' which allows limits on hate speech and which again -- due to the clause here acknowledging earlier resolutions' authority, and the lack in 'PFE' of a "compelling practical purposes" exemption -- would over-ride this. Possibly even mentioning the environmental resolutions wasn't necessary, but I decided to err on the side of caution.

Additionally, I would like to see something about restrictions on "disrupting another, pre-announced and state-approved event" and letting states require notification of any gatherings that are likely to require re-routing of traffic. And requiring that the organizers provide access to emergency services at large gatherings. Just, you know, general basic safety rules, like what are in effect in RL.

It seems to me that your first point here should already be covered by '1.d.'.... and why should "state-approved" events automatically be entitled to more protection under this proposed resolution than other events -- especially as they're likely to be given more help by the approving governments anyway -- to start with?
I'll see whether I can fit in something specifically about advance notification and access for emergency services, instead of just leaving those [hopefully] covered by ‘1.d.’ -- and arguably, for the emergency services, '1.b.' as well -- instead.

Clause 4.d. - is that meant to be read so that your employment can be terminated because you don't want to partake a politicals gathering (because your personal morals don't like the idea of showing up in support of whatever cause it has, and you're actually a member of their political polar opposite party) your boss has decided to have an "employee bonding" thing in and said anyone not coming is fired, despite no mentions of political gatherings when they first took the job?

No, it’s just meant to say that if you didn’t freely agree to accept those activities as a condition of employment when you took the job, or at some later point, then the requirement can’t be imposed on you as a condition of employment without your consent and so you can’t be forced to participate in those activities. I hadn’t considered the possibility of somebody being fired for refusing either to go beyond their contractual duties or to agree on an extension of those duties: Thank you for pointing out that possibility, and I’ll consider trying to insert a fix... although maybe this would be better as part of a separate proposal about protecting contractual rights, instead.

The exceptions in clause 5 seem to negate all the rest of the resolution. Is that intentional?

What?!? The exceptions in clause 5 allow single-party or theocratic governments to remain legal (thus avoiding illegality for ‘Ideological Ban’), mean that a government can have a single agency for some role (e.g. army, police, civil service), and mean that an organisation which was founded independently of the government can’t insist on being treated as a government agency: They do nothing to limit the existence and number of non-government agencies in any general field, and the continuing independent status of those organisations is specifically protected by clause ‘2.a.’.

Clause 6 still has vague/confusing wording for the exception. Maybe instead of "except as", make it "except allowing" and maybe "states" instead of "governments"? (Also I think later in the sentence it's supposed to have "at least" instead of "least".)

”except as” is a legitimate English usage, at least in this sort of context, and if I replace “as” with “allowing” then I’d have to add another word or two for better grammar. I’ll consider this if there are still enough characters free after making any other changes

Also the whole thing still allows brainwashing children (politically, ideologically or religiously, doesn't matter), so ICly for it for that reason, OOCly staunchly against.

What you effectively mean by “allows brainwashing children” is “allows families to decide what ideological beliefs their children are taught”, yes? Are you actually suggesting that children shouldn’t be told anything at all about such matters until they reach legal adulthood, despite the principle of (and existing resolution to protect) freedom of expression, or 'just' suggesting that the state should have a monopoly of such teaching? State-monopolised ‘education’ on these topics is probably just as likely as parentally-authorised education to become indoctrination, perhaps even more so given that the exclusion of alternative viewpoints would be on a wider scale and so children would be less likely to encounter them, and therefore neither I on an OOC basis nor a majority of the Bears IC regards it as a preferable approach.

[Uan aa Boa]

What this proposal essentially does is provide a list of exceptions and then say that people can lawfully assemble in order to do anything that isn't on that list. Unless the Assembly takes a similar line regarding the actions of individuals there will remain situations in which people in certain nations can legally do something in an assembly that they cannot legally do on their own. With, I presume, no prospect of a resolution that says that individuals cannot be prevented from doing anything outside the scope of a list of specific exceptions this does seem a little odd.

I appreciate what this is trying to do in terms of legitimising protest and dissent - but wouldn't it make more sense to begin by protecting these at an individual level before moving on to deal with assemblies?

That's a reasonable question. Individuals’ rights to promote causes are covered already by the existing resolution ‘Protecting Free Expression’. Which of the other rights that I recognise here for assemblies and organisations do you think specifically (a) would be relevant for individuals as well and (b) aren’t also covered already by existing resolutions, so that we can see whether I or anybody else wants to start work on that?

I defer to your far more extensive knowledge of past resolutions. The point is that this draft doesn't recognise rights for assemblies, it recognises the grounds on which rights can be withheld. It doesn't say that people can assemble for certain purposes, but that they can assemble for any purpose except for some specific exceptions. And if we accept that it would be undesirable to create a situation where people can do in an assembly things they are prevented from doing when on their own, then this proposal essentially subjugates the whole of every member nation's laws to one single list of things they are able to prohibit. To call this invasive of national sovereignty would be a considerable understatement. Whether or not your list in practice matches up with existing resolutions on individual freedoms is beside the point, which is that this is poor basis for making international law.

Why shouldn't member nations that choose to do so pass laws against consuming hormone treated beef, eating blue cheese on public transport or any other example you can think of? Why should a nation that wants to legislate on litter have to build a case that it's covered by pre-existing WA resolutions on the environment? These might not necessarily be good laws, wise laws or laws you would want to see replicated in every member nation, but it is a considerable thing to deprive all governments of the right to have them and it goes considerably beyond the scope of the sort of pooling of sovereignty that should be involved in joining an international body. It's extreme overkill to micromanage the domestic law of member nations in this way if all you actually want to do is address the fact that Protecting Free Expression doesn't apply to groups.

I strongly suggest that you aim to confer on assemblies the important rights you want them to have rather than continuing with this "all of them except x,y and z" approach.