NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal GA#27: Freedom of Assembly

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Wymondham
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 03, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Wymondham » Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:38 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: I have marked this Illegal in the queue for an Honest Mistake: the clause beginning "Disappointed..." asserts that assemblies which result in the occupation of legislative assemblies are protected under the target resolution. The target clearly states that "individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble" (emphasis added) - non-peaceful assemblies are not protected here and I don't see how anyone could argue that such occupations are "peaceful."

I apologize for not catching this prior to submission; the last time I looked at this thread I don't recall seeing it, but that was a while back.

To confirm, the issue is only with the Disappointed clause not the Appalled one as well?
Last edited by Wymondham on Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Wymondham
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 03, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Wymondham » Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:28 am

I've pulled this and as soon its confirmed as to whether its just the disappointed clause or if its the appalled clause as well, I will resubmit minus the offending clause(s)
Last edited by Wymondham on Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:14 am

Wymondham wrote:I've pulled this and as soon its confirmed as to whether its just the disappointed clause or if its the appalled clause as well, I will resubmit minus the offending clause/s

Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

User avatar
Wymondham
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 03, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Wymondham » Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:05 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Wymondham wrote:I've pulled this and as soon its confirmed as to whether its just the disappointed clause or if its the appalled clause as well, I will resubmit minus the offending clause/s

Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both
Last edited by Wymondham on Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:10 pm

Wymondham wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both

Ah, that's fair.

User avatar
Wymondham
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 03, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Wymondham » Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:35 pm

As a note, the /s in "clause/s" from my post about temporarily pulling this was meant to be used in the same way as (s). I've edited to clarify, I was very muchnoy trying to be sarcastic or subtweet anyone

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3815
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:22 pm

Wymondham wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both


OOC: Yes, the first mark classified both clauses as honest mistakes. On reflection, though, I believe the "appalled" clause - though undeniably weasel-worded and as a player I dislike it - fits in the "colorable interpretation" standard. Reasonable people - if few - could interpret the target that way, so it's fine to leave it in IMO.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2842
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:21 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Wymondham wrote:Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both


OOC: Yes, the first mark classified both clauses as honest mistakes. On reflection, though, I believe the "appalled" clause - though undeniably weasel-worded and as a player I dislike it - fits in the "colorable interpretation" standard. Reasonable people - if few - could interpret the target that way, so it's fine to leave it in IMO.


OOC: Also apologies to the author for not catching this earlier. I agree that the "innocent people" clause is not an honest mistake and the disappointed clause is.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Wymondham
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 03, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Wymondham » Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:58 am

Bananaistan wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: Yes, the first mark classified both clauses as honest mistakes. On reflection, though, I believe the "appalled" clause - though undeniably weasel-worded and as a player I dislike it - fits in the "colorable interpretation" standard. Reasonable people - if few - could interpret the target that way, so it's fine to leave it in IMO.


OOC: Also apologies to the author for not catching this earlier. I agree that the "innocent people" clause is not an honest mistake and the disappointed clause is.

OOC: Just to be 100% sure, you're saying that the Disappointed clause is ilegal, but the innocent people/apalled clause is legal?
Edit: As long as my assumption above is true, I'm going to yoink the disappointed clause and resubmit tommorrow
Last edited by Wymondham on Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Wymondham
Envoy
 
Posts: 202
Founded: Apr 03, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Wymondham » Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:26 am

I have resubmitted this here

User avatar
Jedinsto
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 401
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:10 am

One approval away from quorum
My proposal
James DuBois
Capitalism, centrism, abortion, environment, civil rights
Communism, socialism, nukes, fascism, Trump

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1751
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Goobergunchia » Sat Jan 30, 2021 1:22 pm

For the information of all Members, this Proposal has reached quorum and is now in the queue to be voted on. Question to be put in 1 day 20 hours.
(+5175 posts from mostly pre-Jolt)
Making NationStates a different place since 17 May 2003.
ADN Advisor
Nasicournian Officer
Citizen of the Rejected Realms
Discord: Goobergunch#2417
Sponsor, HR#22, SC#4
Member, UNOG
Rules: GA SC
Retired Forum Moderator
For your forum moderation needs: The Moderation Forum
For your in-game moderation needs: The Getting Help Page
What are the rules? See The One-Stop Rules Shop.
Who are the mods? See the All About Moderators sticky.

User avatar
Feyrisshire
Envoy
 
Posts: 257
Founded: Nov 27, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Feyrisshire » Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 am

This repeal could only be a good thing. I'd say that GA#27 also had a number of flaws as well not covered in this repeal but I am happy for all the reasons for repeal given. I hope that the repeal prepared would be much better than the current resolution.
Unironically supports ☭FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY ANIME CATGIRL COMMUNISM☭ | Pronouns: She/Her | Weeaboo? Sovietboo! ☭ | See also Danschien Ryeifinsshire, Feyrisshire's PT version. | What pop music in Feyrisshire sounds like
The Communist Bloc Ministress for World Assembly Affairs
Chocolate strawberry parfaits given to people with amazing F7 responses (since 19/7/2020): 76

Froggy News| Feyris Covid vaccine renamed from "Furrycures" to "Reifinvacs", first name "ridiculous"| High Princess: "People's protracted war" vs coronavirus successful, 8 m vaccinated| Sexy sorceress blesses Covid vaccine with magic spell, claimed to be more effective| Navy catgirls throw 3 Chinese fishermen off the sea, China demands explanation|

User avatar
Neymarland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 104
Founded: Jan 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Neymarland » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:20 am

I am appalled that this flawed resolution was in place for so long. Thank you for standing up to it. I have a feeling you are going to replace it.
What's that, someone is within 5 feet from me? Dives REF, REF! RED CARD, RED CARD
NEYMARLAND Is a proud member of UEFA Champions League
"You passed the Parc de Pantses. Hope you find your new jeans tomorrow."
Sign on HIghway 45802-540-35903
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett
"Don't waste your money on a chair. Your chair is now broken and meaningless, as you bought that chair from a yard sale." -Thomas Edward Harrison
NEWS: Football fans rejoice in PSG's last victory.---Trump supporter causes barfight over election rigging.
Stance:Semi-Dictatorship, right-wing. Like everything except communists, abortion, and brussel sprouts.

User avatar
Kadikalacistan
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Dec 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Kadikalacistan » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:08 am

Couldn't he just amend GA#27 to make it stronger and more clear? I believe the general idea is good, but I can agree that some clauses are vague and unclear.
Last edited by Kadikalacistan on Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8000
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:15 am

Kadikalacistan wrote:Couldn't he just amend GA#27...

Resolutions cannot be amended.

Still opposed, if I haven't said that here already :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Westinor
Diplomat
 
Posts: 723
Founded: Feb 15, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Westinor » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:07 pm

The North Pacific will be voting Against the at-vote GA proposal, and our delegate has lodged a vote accordingly. Further information on our stance can be found in our IFV here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1499508
Authorship - Things I've written!

Stay safe, wear a mask, and have a great day! :)

User avatar
Texkentuck
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jan 17, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Texkentuck will vote for the repeal

Postby Texkentuck » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:56 pm

Believing that more detailed and comprehensive legislation is required to address the issues raised in this resolution is the reasoning why on behalf of the Texkentuck Federation will vote for the repeal to have a more sound proposal for Freedom of Assembly.

User avatar
Neymarland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 104
Founded: Jan 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Neymarland » Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:03 am

Westinor wrote:The North Pacific will be voting Against the at-vote GA proposal, and our delegate has lodged a vote accordingly. Further information on our stance can be found in our IFV here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1499508

Wow, cool. What about the other Pacifics?
What's that, someone is within 5 feet from me? Dives REF, REF! RED CARD, RED CARD
NEYMARLAND Is a proud member of UEFA Champions League
"You passed the Parc de Pantses. Hope you find your new jeans tomorrow."
Sign on HIghway 45802-540-35903
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett
"Don't waste your money on a chair. Your chair is now broken and meaningless, as you bought that chair from a yard sale." -Thomas Edward Harrison
NEWS: Football fans rejoice in PSG's last victory.---Trump supporter causes barfight over election rigging.
Stance:Semi-Dictatorship, right-wing. Like everything except communists, abortion, and brussel sprouts.

User avatar
Riviere Renard
Secretary
 
Posts: 36
Founded: Apr 23, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Riviere Renard » Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:03 pm

Extremely against

I'm usually rather apathetic about new resolutions, but this one offended me. I've read both resolutions several times, and while flaws certainly exist, I don't think they're nearly bad enough for a repeal, nor are any of the problems stated in the resolution as problematic as perceived.

Regretting the many loopholes that the resolution presents which could allow despotic governments to clamp down on free assembly, such as the lack of a definition or qualifier for “harm” in clause 3, potentially obligating governments to forbid protests or demonstrations based on minor, technical and irrelevant harms, such as increased taxes on the most wealthy in society...

While certainly the loose definition of harm is problematic, the resolution in question merely allows the government to 'put down', as it could be exaggerated as, the protest, never obligated. Furthermore, if a nation were to do such an action with a clearly inappropriate definition of harm, one could expect it to cause backlash from the WA, if only hindered from resulting legal dispute. While certainly a problem to be solved, a repeal is not an appropriate solution. After all, is there no supreme court for the WA?

Concerned, however, that Clause 1 allows denizens to abuse the rights granted by it to evade incarceration, punishment, or other repercussions for their crimes - a significant hindrance to the execution of justice, by extending the right to assemble to “all individuals” regardless of their criminal status...

I don't believe this to be true, based on the resolution in question. Criminals are most certainly allowed to protest, but that won't allow them to avoid punishments for their crimes. Even if the crimes are related to the protests, there is no such clause that prevents arrest so long as the arrest is unrelated to protesting at all. And, most crimes, I think, can be reasonably interpreted as violating the 'peaceful' clause of the resolution. Criminals who have served their time have the right to protest, and criminals who will so be arrested have the right to protest. The resolution doesn't say that a criminal who is amongst the protestors cannot be arrested, merely that a peaceful assembly cannot be put down.

Worried that clause 2 of the resolution does not prevent protests which cause harm to members of the public, for example protests organised on a public highway, those which would block the route of emergency vehicles, or protests that take place in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, as clause 2 states governments may only restrict the freedom of assembly when “individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing”...

Clause 2 of resolution 27 states "No Government... may take any action to infringe upon [the rights from clause 1]; unless... circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.", therefore concerns over "protests that take place in dangerous or unhealthy conditions" are misplaced. The resolution also prevents "protest which cause harm to members of the public" by clarifying in clause 1 that these rights only extend to peaceful protests.

Saddened that, while it bars those who call for violence via direct action from its protections, the resolution shields those who do so via calls for deliberate inaction, such as by urging law enforcement officers to refrain from protecting individuals of a certain racial group...

This is a serous concern, but one that is better solved by another resolution, then by removing this one. Although I'd hesitate to say this is a bad as implied. It does not allow police to listen to protestors in that regard, and police intervention because of race is prohibited by other resolutions. I don't believe a protest as boldly racist as this hypothetical should exist, but this case can, and should, be handled by a further resolution rather than by repealing this one.

Appalled that clause 3 does not extend its prohibition to demonstrations that call for violence against the imprisoned, accused or convicted, only applying its protections to the nebulously defined group of “innocent people”...

The resolution in question is the most vague resolution I've read. However, I do not believe that it allows, by any reasonable interpretation, a call for violence against the imprisoned, as, in this circumstance, they are innocent to the protestors. However, much like most of the resolution, it needs clarification.

Believing that more detailed and comprehensive legislation is required to address the issues raised in this resolution...

Most certainly an additional resolution is vital, but removing the original piece is a mistake. Merely a resolution that extends protection in certain cases is needed. It is unreasonable to say resolution 27 explicitly allows abuse of powers by protestors, so we need not repeal it.

I have seen resolutions repealed with calls to replace it, but no replacement resolution comes to vote, or it gets voted against, which is highly concerning to me. This is one of our most fundamental freedoms of democratic and undemocratic nations alike. If this is repealed I hope deeply that a true an active movement does come forth the make a better one.

Because of how important the original was, in order to support this repeal I must see a draft of a replacement by someone. While I don't want it to be repealed at all, I recognize the opportunity opened up by allowing the creation of a better, more up to date one.

User avatar
Brightharpia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Feb 02, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Brightharpia » Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:14 pm

Kadikalacistan wrote:Couldn't he just amend GA#27 to make it stronger and more clear? I believe the general idea is good, but I can agree that some clauses are vague and unclear.


Kadikalacistan, I agree. If there are issues with GA#27, it seems more appropriate to amend it as opposed to a repeal. If there was a strong proposal for Freedom of Assembly speech immediately right after this repeal my vote might be for yes, but Brightharpia is currently against.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10301
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:57 pm

Brightharpia wrote:
Kadikalacistan wrote:Couldn't he just amend GA#27 to make it stronger and more clear? I believe the general idea is good, but I can agree that some clauses are vague and unclear.


Kadikalacistan, I agree. If there are issues with GA#27, it seems more appropriate to amend it as opposed to a repeal. If there was a strong proposal for Freedom of Assembly speech immediately right after this repeal my vote might be for yes, but Brightharpia is currently against.

Amendments are not supported by the game. viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Neymarland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 104
Founded: Jan 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Neymarland » Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:50 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Brightharpia wrote:
Kadikalacistan, I agree. If there are issues with GA#27, it seems more appropriate to amend it as opposed to a repeal. If there was a strong proposal for Freedom of Assembly speech immediately right after this repeal my vote might be for yes, but Brightharpia is currently against.

Amendments are not supported by the game. viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

It annoys me that so many members don't know about that.
What's that, someone is within 5 feet from me? Dives REF, REF! RED CARD, RED CARD
NEYMARLAND Is a proud member of UEFA Champions League
"You passed the Parc de Pantses. Hope you find your new jeans tomorrow."
Sign on HIghway 45802-540-35903
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett
"Don't waste your money on a chair. Your chair is now broken and meaningless, as you bought that chair from a yard sale." -Thomas Edward Harrison
NEWS: Football fans rejoice in PSG's last victory.---Trump supporter causes barfight over election rigging.
Stance:Semi-Dictatorship, right-wing. Like everything except communists, abortion, and brussel sprouts.

User avatar
United States of Americanas
Envoy
 
Posts: 302
Founded: Jan 23, 2017
Left-wing Utopia

Postby United States of Americanas » Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:52 pm

Hmm, so this is a repeal for a looooooong standing law that works fine and the repeal / replace according to my advisors contains some of the flaws as the original. Uhh yeah no thanks. I’ll be filing a big fat nope vote.
Last edited by United States of Americanas on Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Political Compass as of Oct 26

Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74

Damn right I’m a liberal democratic socialist. I sit in the ranks of Caroline Lucas

User avatar
Texkentuck
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Jan 17, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

The people will assemble as they please

Postby Texkentuck » Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:29 pm

Want to address that the repeal of this proposal is good and the next one drawn up will be better. That is if there is one. The questions we need to ask ourselves is why are the laws put in place. Laws are put in place because something is an issue. This horrendous law kept in place will make it in which no one can keep law and order. In the next bill their must be a distinction between what is considered protesting by this assembly and what is considered total rebellion. I vote for this to be replaced for that distinction.

My nation would like to thank the WA for doing it's best to make our nations better. We need to have a proposal sometime in the future that will benefit a nations economy. One in which the gap between rich and poor is closed more but the rich in our nations aren't affected to the point of pure protests and rebellion. We support the repeal and on behalf of the royal family in the bill for better quality to nations with a huge wealth gap we offer up to 1.2 million TextMarks for the purpose of redistributed stimulus to be entered into closing the wealth gap. This cash comes from Texkentuck's oil and soda sails industry. In such a bill please add Texkentuck and all nations do the same. Nations who can not do this will not be affected by this what so ever and that should be added. Make a proposal only for wealthy nations.
Deo Gratias et Maria

Forever a still a capitalist nation in accord to closing the gap by just a bit for better living standards. It's my nations moral duty as long as we don't become full on socialist.

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Federation
Last edited by Texkentuck on Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cha Grady, Outer Sparta, Refuge Isle

Advertisement

Remove ads