[Legality Challenge] Repeal: "Freedom of Assembly"
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:52 pm
Proposal text: https://www.nationstates.net/page=ga
Drafting thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=495769
Target resolution: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
I recognize that this challenge comes late, and I do wish it had been brought sooner. That said, I believe the repeal currently at vote contains two related Honest Mistakes, both relating to a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of GAR#27's third clause:
The two clauses from the repeal - "worried" and "saddened" - are reproduced below:
In the case of the "worried" clause, the argument being made is that clause 2 of the target allows "protests which cause harm to members of the public," using the disruption of emergency services as an example. This is a clear contradiction of clause 3's mention of "actions that would cause harm to innocent people," which would seem to directly address this concern and other potential-but-unnamed examples. I don't believe it's a reasonable interpretation of the text to presume that clause 3 cannot be applied to matters of public safety.
Similarly, the "saddened" clause describes a scenario in which protestors call for harm via inaction, such as a deliberate failure to enforce protections for a minority group. While I recognize that "inaction" is on paper an inverse of clause 3's "actions" qualifier, calling for a premeditated decision to leave specific persons unprotected or otherwise vulnerable is itself a form of action, and as such it's prohibited by the same portion of GAR#27's clause 3.
Drafting thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=495769
Target resolution: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1
I recognize that this challenge comes late, and I do wish it had been brought sooner. That said, I believe the repeal currently at vote contains two related Honest Mistakes, both relating to a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of GAR#27's third clause:
3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.
The two clauses from the repeal - "worried" and "saddened" - are reproduced below:
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”,
In the case of the "worried" clause, the argument being made is that clause 2 of the target allows "protests which cause harm to members of the public," using the disruption of emergency services as an example. This is a clear contradiction of clause 3's mention of "actions that would cause harm to innocent people," which would seem to directly address this concern and other potential-but-unnamed examples. I don't believe it's a reasonable interpretation of the text to presume that clause 3 cannot be applied to matters of public safety.
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,
Similarly, the "saddened" clause describes a scenario in which protestors call for harm via inaction, such as a deliberate failure to enforce protections for a minority group. While I recognize that "inaction" is on paper an inverse of clause 3's "actions" qualifier, calling for a premeditated decision to leave specific persons unprotected or otherwise vulnerable is itself a form of action, and as such it's prohibited by the same portion of GAR#27's clause 3.