[DEFEATED] Repeal GA#537 "Right to Assemble"

[Tinhampton]

I will submit this on Monday, absent further comment of substance.

[Simone Republic]

Do you have a succinct summary of why Maowi's version is inferior to yours? I mean, I can put the GA#20 repeal to just one line: "we are doing an R&R because GA#20 assumes an accomplice to a pirate is guilty unless they can proof they were threatened at pain of death to work as an accomplice, even rape or torture don't count".

That's more straight forward and an easier sell.

We've got like 20 something pending resolutions now, it's much harder to get everyone to read carefully to grasp the nuances.

Maybe a table or something?

[Tinhampton]

Do you have a succinct summary of why Maowi's version is inferior to yours?

Two points:

1. 537's definition of harmful activities are too narrow: for instance, it does not generally allow assemblies to be broken up where they are organised in a manner that threatens participant health.

2. 537 contains overreaching sections on offensive assemblies - the expressive substance of which is not banned by WA law in and of itself - that require member states to choose between suppressing them before they happen, allowing them and then having to implement potentially demanding safety measures, or non-compliance. Mine does not: it focuses on when assembly is appropriate.

[Rabotia]

Rabotia's WA ambassador, Dimitri Angelopoulov, rises to comment.

Excellencies, rarely have I seen such a poorly justified proposal.

I intend no offence to Mr Mitchell, but it seems to me that the author is fundamentally unaware of legal theory, the usual operation of legal systems, and the philosophy of legal interpretation not only as it pertains to international law, but domestic law also.

Let me first respond to the assertion made in clause B, namely, that there ought to be what the author calls a "positive right" to free assembly. Excellencies, without wishing to sound like an 'Intro to Constitutional Law' textbook, I feel it bears defining the terms "positive right" and "negative right". A negative right is a right which prohibits another party (be it a person or entity) from taking action in relation to the rights-holder which would prevent the latter from observing the relevant right - for instance, prohibiting government from censoring publications in order to guarantee a right to free expression. Conversely, a positive right is a right which compels another party to take action in relation to the rights-holder to ensure the latter can observe the relevant right - for instance, compelling government to allocate vacant dwellings to citizens in order to guarantee a right to housing.

In light of this, I would ask the esteemed delegate from TInhampton how exactly he would intend to construct a "positive right" to free assembly? Compelling government to fund, accommodate, perhaps even provide refreshments to any odd gathering of people? Or perhaps compelling citizens to attend such gatherings? The very idea is patently absurd.

I turn now to clause C, which egregiously misrepresents the meaning of the word "unlawful". It is not, nor has it ever been, necessary for there to exist a law prohibiting an exact course of action in order for said course of action to be unlawful. Actions can be unlawful for any number of reasons. It is unlawful in all civilised nations to ply an infant with espresso - not because many national legislatures (indeed perhaps none!) have thought to pass specific laws against giving espresso to an infant, but because of the outcome: doing this would do serious physical (and possibly psychological) harm to that child, and acting in a way which seriously harms or may harm a child is illegal, I would wager, everywhere.

The same thing applies to the example of blocking ambulances. The underlying question for that hypothetical nation is: Is it illegal to take an action which gravely heightens the chance that someone else might die? If so, then you have no problem, and blocking ambulances is unlawful. If not, then why should it be a pretext for dissolving an assembly? Either an action is sufficiently objectionable to be unlawful, in which case it is also sufficiently objectionable to override a fundamental human right. Or it is not, in which case...it is not. You can't have it both ways.

Clause E is factually accurate, but moot. Yes, GA#537 fails to define the terms "hatred", "abuse", and "necessary". But we need only look at Mr Mitchell's draft proposal for a replacement to discover why this would be a specious justification for repeal: Mr Mitchell, likewise, doesn't define "violent", "imminent", "danger", "health", or "safety". Nor - to be clear - am I saying that he should. The fact is, any piece of law, international or otherwise, relies on a sound, plain, and reasonable interpretation of its wording in order to achieve its desired outcome. If we wished to make the opposite presumption, every single resolution would need to contain a whole laundry list of definitions.

Resolutions are pieces of international law, not dictionaries, Excellencies - so definitions are only necessary where a term that could be construed very broadly is being used in a much more narrow and specific way within that resolution than the plain, reasonable reading might suggest - which is exactly what Mr Mitchell has done in his replacement proposal. The uses of the terms "hatred", "abuse" and "necessary" in GA#537 are not narrow, and therefore require no definition.

From the refreshing factual accuracy of clause E, I must now move on to clause F, which is anything but. The assertion Mr Mitchell makes here is quite simply irrelevant to the resolution being considered. In abbreviated form, Mr Mitchell asserts that "resolutions that [sanction members] who refuse to suppress [...] speech that may not even violate their own national laws, let alone other international laws, should not be kept on the books."

And yet Article 5b of GA#537 does nothing of the sort; it does not insist that members should suppress speech, nor - I would argue - can it even be reasonably interpreted that way. Suppressing speech described in Article 5a of GA#537 might be a way of "ensuring the safety" of targeted individuals, but I cannot think of a single possible scenario where it would be the only way to do so, so it is complete nonsense to suggest that 5b of GA#537 compels members to suppress speech of any kind (lawful or unlawful) - it merely, arguably, maintains doing so as an possible course of action for the kinds of speech described in 5a of that resolution. This is already the case anyway, and thus is not actually an effect of that resolution.

Finally, and in a similar vein, we reach clause G: This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of legal interpretation. Yes, I concede, it is entirely possible under GA#537 to choose to provide guards to immigrants in the face of a rally calling for their deportation. It is also entirely possible not to.

"Ensuring their safety" can be done in myriad ways, provided other resolutions and national laws do not prohibit them. Notwithstanding such legislation, you could ensure their safety by incarcerating all xenophobes. You could ensure their safety by building moats around their homes. Indeed, you could even ensure their safety by deporting them! To suggest that GA#537 actually requires the provision of guards to individuals in the face of an abusive and/or hateful gathering, though, is hogwash.

In conclusion, Excellencies, not a single justification given in this proposal for repealing GA#537 holds up to scrutiny - there is quite simply no reason at all to repeal the resolution. We will be voting against this when it goes to vote, and urging all other nations to do the same.

He returns to his seat.

[Kinnies]

Well said, Rabotia.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We support the repeal in accordance with the Republic's immutable position that 5(a)(ii) and 5(b) of the target resolution have no place in law. We regard so-called "hate speech" as nothing more than a fabrication invented by the radical left to make their repressive agenda sound more palatable.

[Mancheseva City]

Rabotia's post is very based tbh. It's interesting that I wrote the IFV for Europeia basically using the same arguments. Well said

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Repeal "Right to Assemble"" was defeated 12,018 votes to 2,876.

For: 2,876: Overthinkers (514), Malphe II (239), Socialist Platypus (163), Deims Kir (107), New Asden (85), Ramelia (83), Lesser Velutaria (72), Bearded Dragones (42), Savonir (32), Parkplace (29), Orioni 2 (23), NewTexas (22), The Union of Costa Rica (20), Cruciland (17), Korgonsk (16), Densaner (15), Baloo Kingdom (15), Team Kitten (14), Papacy Birds (12), Tinhampton (11), Craftania (11), Oi Barbaroi (9), Hajirah (9), Suvmia (9), South Mindoor (8), Roznepal (7), Allangoria of MT (7), Madrocea (7), Solariia (7), Draganisia (7), The Immortal Fire Nation (6), Brocklandia (6), Siluvia (6), Russchratt (6), Freependence (6), VykoNight (5), The Soviet state of Svalbard (5), The Ruby Ranch Republic (5), Jareblan (5), The Palentine (5), Russian Red Soviets (5), Everlasting Crusade (5), GoldSilver918 (4), Opriali (4), Wobbegong (4), ColdHeartedBastards (4), Gatchina (4), Klean Kanteen (4), Northwesteastland (4), Matatic and The Principality of Surkis (4), Republic of Blank (4), Herby (3), Maltitalerland (3), Creavania (3), Hustlertwo (3), WA Clante (3), The 2nd Facepunch Republic (3), Feno It Le (3), Sow Bug (3), Rogaita (3), Ottoman Realm (3), Sardon (2), Making Catgirls Real (2), The Autocracy of Pacifica (2), Vichtander (2), The Terren Dominion (2), Nouvel Acadie (2), Zandovia (2), The Rising Aura (2), Communo-Slavocia (2), President Pro Tempore (2), Busaria (2), The Omsk state (2), NISTER KEDSULI (2), The Land Of Donuut (2), Mabanarlan (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Skrakia (2), Lusogalicia (2), The Neolithic German Empire (2), New Autistica (2), Rachmanistan (2), Exkrea (2), Audaxpericulosum (2), Dytarma (2), Ronodin (2), United Democratia (2), PAINFUL DEATHS (2), CHAD-EMPIRE- (2), Free Woritanarbio Islands (2), Transsobor (2), Mandatorial Palestine (2), Sonpop (2), Felensia (2), Venova (2), VINCENZONIA (2), Lower Slobbovia (2), Fahran (2), Funktropolis (2), Great Cobra Republic (2), Remubris (2), and (1,053) individual member nations.

Against: 12,018: Hulldom (1,126), Tepertopia (780), Kethania (735), VW53Aland (535), Imperium Anglorum (419), Lenlyvit (309), Fooooooooo (275), Sylh Alanor (242), Le Libertia (231), Creeperopolis (225), Mechanocracy (181), Podria (138), South Boston Irishmen (113), The Glorious Hypetrain (103), Ruinenlust (101), Rayekka (96), Witchcraft and Sorcery (94), Wintermoot (78), Mally Piznoopia (73), Staidear (73), Student Loan Debt (70), Mikeswill (58), New United Common-lands (57), The Litterbox (57), The Salaxalans (56), Long Live The Henrarchy (45), Candensia (44), Nulkia (42), Romanovskaya (42), Ofiussia (32), Moukden and Kirin (32), Frandonia (31), Sanctaria (31), Lamoni (30), Gideon (27), Sjevre (25), Gran River (24), Tostandia (23), Oogway (22), Dabberwocky (21), Olinasha (18), Lamplight (18), Felix Femboi (17), Mlociniakik (17), Tubrita (16), The United States of Naru (16), Middle Ibarthelastorosa (16), Kingdom of Englands (16), Malamute (16), The United Dark Republic (15), DeMoNiC SaTaN (15), Repolet (15), Equa Lib (14), The Bolivian Socialist Falange (12), The Voltarum (11), Oncadia (11), Grande pudimland (11), Lennonia (10), Eyrey (10), Auxorii (10), Haltoria (9), Wadelhelpia (8), Mark (8), New Nationale Einheit (8), Ko-oren (8), Average Sized Shreklandia (7), The Greastest Nation (7), Garfield NP3 (7), OmegaShenron (7), Hydroponic Nation (7), Londoniopol (7), Tondoluland (7), Ventus Prime (7), The Grand Kingdom of Elsweyr (6), Vegaga (6), Demonos (6), Xvraks (6), Albarusija (6), Wolfs Brigade (6), Aura Banitia (6), Olfasgesvet (5), Thee Canadian (5), Maritata (5), Chap Ven (5), Vost Dotari (5), Toriniall (5), Wabacha (5), Yeetsralia (5), Angladen (5), Kaparthia (5), Romancatholicism (5), Eastern Geenientan (5), Union of Soviet State Republics (5), Rookerand (5), The 45 percent of pride republic (5), The Perfect Utopian Society (4), Voxija (4), The Spanish Coast (4), Alcala (4), Nearly Finland (4), United Newpearl (4), Sarzville (4), Greater Lankland (4), Santa Thereza (4), Merulla (4), The Mithril City (4), Zhensheng Xue (4), South Sulphur (4), Free Scandanavia (4), Kartunesia (4), Markus Sarasti-Varis (4), Nytocho (4), Polandorus (4), Vulxo (4), Tricorniolis (4), Weirdiron (4), San Lumen (4), The Candy Of Bottles (4), Ard alAkhua (4), Providemist Seclusa (4), Kylarnatia (4), Slythoria (3), New Salmon Islands (3), Terosia (3), Bialostan (3), 11 Templar Knights (3), Loistavik (3), Phoenicia- (3), Vorlizka (3), Technoco (3), Twitter sucks (3), Imperial Holia Myzkaaria (3), Jori Basu (3), Flor-Fina (3), Safana (3), Chemgota (3), East Lago (3), Verlos (3), Say Goodbye To Freedom (3), Nelson Canada (3), Comunist Land1 (3), The Krovx Belgian Air Forces (3), Idinist Imauggland (3), Kigasan (3), Zombiedolphins (3), Nikoland Piczi (3), Bruh LOL (3), Winar Gnopediastan (3), People freedom China (3), Noldorin Oron (3), Golanchia (3), Kleinekatzen (3), Pirates and Buccaneers (3), Brankenspiel (3), Fannland (3), Cosweland (3), Abdu (3), Lycantine (3), United Dependencies (3), URANIUMni (3), Sedgistan (3), Europux (3), Sokkalia (3), Crab (3), Great Libertona (3), Eon Republic (3), Imperial Felchah (3), Knootoss (3), F N A C (3), Austelia (3), Bernelia (3), Bollocksville (3), Uvumbuzia (3), Vosko (3), Nationuraniume (3), Glaazia (3), Belm Don (2), The Isles of Bermuda (2), Landerterimes (2), The Kingdom of the Kekistan State (2), Galactic Powers (2), The Elite Imperial Forces (2), Ajams (2), Dalavi (2), Konia Astione (2), Mitzvah (2), Kingdom of Aurelia (2), Emirdaland (2), Eldenar (2), Kuan Shi Yin (2), Union of Noovistian (2), Delmond (2), Raccquesi (2), Leticiaa (2), Ronimbonland (2), New New Chesapeake (2), URCBR (2), The Akasha Colony (2), Foxdeen (2), Andibaz (2), The Ancient World (2), Ecologiania (2), Potatolan (2), Urishis (2), Toasteds (2), Formos (2), Le Bean-Goo (2), Theoscafia (2), Australimia (2), The Gamers of Roblox (2), TheSovietUnion (2), Sorvitunion (2), Chairman Cities (2), Fleroviam (2), Akiniad (2), Ru Rina (2), Apellidor (2), The Cienordia (2), Erivin (2), Brazil FS (2), Djeeta (2), Lysset (2), Kieora (2), Lehqhbraot (2), Molson Iceland (2), Sherpus (2), NinjitsUtopia (2), Pye48 (2), Zenatavia (2), Maroiogogistan (2), Etoile Arcture (2), Beazlend (2), Eua do Sul (2), Experience Eternal (2), Arcata Bay (2), Charliston (2), Gandhara (2), Kolloquia (2), Waffland (2), Neutral Landland (2), Stata Pontificia (2), Meropos (2), Utquiagvik (2), Hetairaea (2), Guadilten (2), The Good Nation Of Americana Christening (2), Northern Seleucia (2), Henrictus Colony (2), Qawm Orobi (2), Lacunation (2), Alris (2), Oktotheio (2), Marialand (2), Kirzikstanz (2), Transgender Cats and Kitties (2), Escotia (2), Indorne (2), Greater Eireann (2), Orifna (2), King Rankmore (2), Seanat (2), Prisvillyzavstuthava (2), Reapertorium (2), Britcan (2), Siredor (2), The Imperial Kaiser of Greater Germany (2), North Mack (2), Sanasalian embassy (2), Cheems Doge (2), Philadelippines (2), Dolphinicus (2), Ugonnadie (2), Aphmeow (2), Adeiatic (2), Thelskwaringica (2), and (4,357) individual member nations.

[Chairman Cities]

The World Is Growing And With Growth Change Must Follow .

[Tinhampton]

The World Is Growing And With Growth Change Must Follow .

I'm trying my best! Redraft in new thread should be up next month, prospective co-authors willing