[DRAFT] Freedom of Association

[Boston Castle]

"Brought to you by the "brilliant" hivemind contained in the Castellian, our delegation has another proposal we eventually wish to pass. Even though, I, Avi Rosenborg, successfully committed a coup d'etat against my own government and instituted a 'technological' form of government, I still wish to see the rights of others protected-as we still allow for organizations outside of the hivemind to organize."

1. This is intentionally short, I don't intend to significantly lengthen it unless it is genuinely believed necessary.

2. "currently violates national criminal law" is intended to mean that an organization may not willfully, for instance, embezzle money. That does not, however, stop something like Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous from organizing because said organizations do not encourage breaking of laws related to alcohol or drugs, quite the opposite.

3. I genuinely believe very strongly in this and I believe that the limits laid out are reasonable and are inclusive towards as many states as possible.

Freedom of Association

Category: Civil Rights| Strengtht: Significant

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the many foundational freedoms previously guaranteed by this august assembly such as freedom of the press and a freedom of assembly,

Further recognizing that while these rights are important in and of themselves that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of thought and affiliation, hereby enacts the following, subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:

1. “Organization” is defined as any labour union, political party, or other organized civil society or economic group.
   
2. Citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing.
   
3. Member nations may not ban, blacklist, or impose legal penalties for affiliation with any organization which has not spread a message of violence or hate towards a protected class or which intends to violate national criminal law.
   
4. Member nations may interfere with the creation of an organization if the organization in question intends to violate or has violated national law or spreads or intends to spread a message of violence or hate towards a protected class.
   
5. Member nations may not create legal penalties for association or non-association with any particular organization.
   
6. Member nations may not disallow all organizations save for one, however, member nations may encourage the creation of a united front coalition of organizations.

Co-authored by Maowi.

[Tinhampton]

The one-item list in Article 5 may be understandable; the one-item list in Article 1 is not ;p

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your sentences don't operate in parallel construction.

[Boston Castle]

OOC: Bump, I guess. Whole thing has basically been re-worded. Turns out I only occasionally have an excellent command of the English language.

[Tinhampton]

My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

[Boston Castle]

My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

[CoraSpia]

Your wording in article 3 could use some work. 'Has' spread a message of hate is very open ended. If a member nation has a political party that's been operating since 1920, it is quite likely that messages once expressed by that party in the normal course of politicking at that point in history, would be considered hateful towards some groups now. This would allow member states to ban them on this ground.

[Maowi]

My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

OOC: I think you want:

Further recognizing that while these rights are important in and of themselves that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of thought and affiliation, hereby enacts the following:

1. “Organization” is defined as any labour union, political party, or other organized civil society or economic group.

And keep the rest as is.

I think this is a good idea and I'm happy to see a draft on this topic. I would note that Right to Assemble protects "planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition" - so the protections granted there, as well as the exceptions reserving to member states the ability to implement certain restrictions, might apply to the purview of this draft, too. I'm not sure if that causes any problems as currently written, I only had a chance to give this a brief look for now.

[Boston Castle]

Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

OOC: I think you want:

Further recognizing that while these rights are important in and of themselves that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of thought and affiliation, hereby enacts the following:

1. “Organization” is defined as any labour union, political party, or other organized civil society or economic group.

And keep the rest as is.

I think this is a good idea and I'm happy to see a draft on this topic. I would note that Right to Assemble protects "planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition" - so the protections granted there, as well as the exceptions reserving to member states the ability to implement certain restrictions, might apply to the purview of this draft, too. I'm not sure if that causes any problems as currently written, I only had a chance to give this a brief look for now.

"If worst comes to worst, Ambassador, I will seek a ruling on that. All it might require is changing the wording of this resolution to avoid the house of cards ruling from GenSec. And as for your concern, it shouldn't."

OOC: Literally just copy-pasted that wording, so I credit you as co-author. If you don't want it, just let me know.

[Maowi]

"If worst comes to worst, Ambassador, I will seek a ruling on that. All it might require is changing the wording of this resolution to avoid the house of cards ruling from GenSec. And as for your concern, it shouldn't."

OOC: Literally just copy-pasted that wording, so I credit you as co-author. If you don't want it, just let me know.

OOC: Co-author credit is not necessary, I just gave you a minor reformatting rather than anything of substance :>

FTR I think the solution of making these measures "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation" works and fixes any potential problem that may have otherwise arisen in terms of contradiction.

[Mancheseva City]

Member nations may not disallow all organizations save for one, however, member nations may encourage the creation of a united front coalition of organizations.

I'm just not sure what you mean or intend to achieve with this clause.

Otherwise, I don't think it duplicates Right to Assemble. Maybe other resolutions? Don't think so either though. Looks like something I could support

[Rhino-Lions]

I think you're on the right track here, though as previously mentioned, some clarity would go a long way in helping persuade my nation to support this bill. But again, I like the concept but the lack of clarity and the ambiguity of some of the statements leave me on the fence for support.