[DEFEATED] Freedom of Opinion and Belief

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. The clause stating

forbids member states from: requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief

would prohibit any kind of meaningfully truthful civil discovery.

[Jedinsto]

As of 64 minutes ago, this has been declared illegal.

[Tinhampton]

A proposal has fallen into the river in LEGO City.

AS OF 0222 BST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 75 out of 53 needed (Tinhampton, Floyssauu, You Should See Me in a Crown, CoraSpia, TESDAI, Molopovia, The Flyin, The United Provinces of North America, Taki Calxur, Brototh, Enlais, Castle Federation, Krovx Luxembourg, Gibraltarica, Creator Land, Ecolaria, Sedgistan, Erloane, Tomisburg, Russia Major, Hax Baba, Mikeswill, Cloich Cheann Fhaola, Robotox Empire, Ashaie, Talyang, The Scottish Republic, Mrhallia, Calnodia, Neim, The Traditional States, Seludong, Novum Orientis, Il Osoris, Fritzentein, Boris Cult, Hometania, Dellettia, Union of Noovistian, Republic of Blank, Calamari Lands, Fachumonn, The Pirates of the West, Eastern Carpathian Free States, Zombiedolphins, Lamerdon, Karteria, The Anarchist Federation of Spain, Terminum, North-West Commland, Misted Lake, Coronational Chechyans and affiliates, Wadelhelpia, Rogue River, Amerion, Socruell, Bearded Dragones, Zatchbell548, Imperialist Bonaparte, Almerdonia, The Islands of Europe and the Americas, The Soviet Union Republics, Agalaesia, Omniabstracta, Chiarje, Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Scorpus, Josephtan, Candanadium, Reultan, San Lumen, J-O-E, Agife, Nagistan, Nation84)

[Tinhampton]

Start up the new rescue helicopter.

---

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. The clause stating

forbids member states from: requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief

would prohibit any kind of meaningfully truthful civil discovery.

Smith: I have amended Article a(iii) to provide exemptions for court cases. Do you believe, madam Ambassador Lady, that this would now suffice - or would you rather an alternative solution?

[Nepleslia]

BREAKING NEWS: Helicopters grounded indefinitely after being declared illegal by GenSec.

[Tinhampton]

BREAKING NEWS: Helicopters grounded indefinitely after being declared illegal by GenSec.

I know, right?

Article c has been excised for the above reasons and because I wish for this proposal to retain its clear focus on Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

[Tinhampton]

Still working on this

[Tinhampton]

The party don't stop until June 7th 2022

[Fachumonn]

The party don't stop until June 7th 2022

This just reminded me how close we are to summer...

[Tinhampton]

Yes but in all seriousness I plan for submission on that date unless huge problems arise

[Comfed]

a.ii strikes me as being outside the scope of this resolution.

[Fachumonn]

The only changes to this and the submitted version are the deletions of an (IMO) rather insignificant clause and the removal of a sentence of a. iii but I guess you could call that enough for a new draft.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:

I don't get this preamble. You use a negatively charged term and then denounce it. That's easy and flippant, and it really doesn't tell me much about the aims here. I don't think any of what follows addresses brainwashing, at least not as I understand that problem.

forbids member states from: * * * criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,

As a matter of pure philosophy there may be a valid distinction here (probably not though). But as a matter of law this clause makes no sense. A legal freedom of thought cannot possibly exist without a corresponding right of expression. That is so because the leviathan cannot know your thoughts unless you express them. Allowing the expression to be criminalized is the same as allowing the thought to be criminalized. What have you protected? Nothing that I can tell.

forbids member states from: * * * criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic

Can you give me an example of what you mean by this, or how it relates to the freedom to hold an opinion or a belief?

forbids member states from: * * * requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the proceedings of courts, tribunals and similar mechanisms are swift and truthful,

You may wish to think this through and refine it. Can a nation's military require its members to affirm the belief that the duly elected president must be obeyed because they are the commander-in-chief of the military? This points somewhat in the right direction of protecting freedoms, but it cuts far too wide a swath.

prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against: * * * any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,

I don't think I could ever support a resolution that prohibits the WA from discriminating against a government due to their actions. I feel like discrimination based on conduct is pretty legitimate. Reconsider why this clause is even here given that in the next clause you write:

clarifies that no part of this resolution other than Article a(iii) directly regulates the actual expression of opinions or other speech.

When most of what you are doing doesn't actually regulate the expression of opinions or other speech, I seriously doubt whether you've done anything to establish a Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

I think that if you're serious about proposing a law on such a complicated concept as this, there needs to be more thought into what exactly you are doing and why. That is just my opinion. I would love to support legislation on this subject, but I don't think what I'm seeing here is worthy of its billing.

[Tinhampton]

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:

I don't get this preamble. You use a negatively charged term and then denounce it. That's easy and flippant, and it really doesn't tell me much about the aims here. I don't think any of what follows addresses brainwashing, at least not as I understand that problem.

I mean, I am trying to stop people from being coerced into believing or not believing assorted things, am I not?

forbids member states from: * * * criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,

As a matter of pure philosophy there may be a valid distinction here (probably not though). But as a matter of law this clause makes no sense. A legal freedom of thought cannot possibly exist without a corresponding right of expression. That is so because the leviathan cannot know your thoughts unless you express them. Allowing the expression to be criminalized is the same as allowing the thought to be criminalized. What have you protected? Nothing that I can tell.

[...]

Reconsider why [Article b(ii)] is even here given that in the next clause you write:

clarifies that no part of this resolution other than Article a(iii) directly regulates the actual expression of opinions or other speech.

When most of what you are doing doesn't actually regulate the expression of opinions or other speech, I seriously doubt whether you've done anything to establish a Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

What you do with your own brain is your business. Right?

forbids member states from: * * * criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic

Can you give me an example of what you mean by this, or how it relates to the freedom to hold an opinion or a belief?

Prisoners of conscience. Refer to the long-ass OOC note in my OP.

forbids member states from: * * * requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the proceedings of courts, tribunals and similar mechanisms are swift and truthful,

You may wish to think this through and refine it. Can a nation's military require its members to affirm the belief that the duly elected president must be obeyed because they are the commander-in-chief of the military? This points somewhat in the right direction of protecting freedoms, but it cuts far too wide a swath.

Would you instead accept Article a(iii) if it banned members from

"requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement forms part of a prescribed oath" ?

prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against: * * * any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,

I don't think I could ever support a resolution that prohibits the WA from discriminating against a government due to their actions. I feel like discrimination based on conduct is pretty legitimate.

GA#440 allows a WA committee to sanction member states in non-compliance with GA resolutions already. Please elaborate on what you mean, other than that.

I think that if you're serious about proposing a law on such a complicated concept as this, there needs to be more thought into what exactly you are doing and why. That is just my opinion. I would love to support legislation on this subject, but I don't think what I'm seeing here is worthy of its billing.

I am already trying to be thoughtful about this whole shenanigans

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I don't get this preamble. You use a negatively charged term and then denounce it. That's easy and flippant, and it really doesn't tell me much about the aims here. I don't think any of what follows addresses brainwashing, at least not as I understand that problem.

I mean, I am trying to stop people from being coerced into believing or not believing assorted things, am I not?

Brainwashing is not always done with coercion. I'd say the most pernicious kind of brainwashing is done subtly, with manipulation rather than coercion.

Your preamble is reductive and has built in assumptions that are not as obvious as you think they are. Others have noted it as well but since you don't care lets just move on.

As a matter of pure philosophy there may be a valid distinction here (probably not though). But as a matter of law this clause makes no sense. A legal freedom of thought cannot possibly exist without a corresponding right of expression. That is so because the leviathan cannot know your thoughts unless you express them. Allowing the expression to be criminalized is the same as allowing the thought to be criminalized. What have you protected? Nothing that I can tell.

[...]

Reconsider why [Article b(ii)] is even here given that in the next clause you write:

When most of what you are doing doesn't actually regulate the expression of opinions or other speech, I seriously doubt whether you've done anything to establish a Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

What you do with your own brain is your business. Right?

We don't need a societal law saying you get to think whatever you want so long as you don't say anything about it. Expressionless thought is already protected by the laws of physics and biology. As a matter of government there is no method for perceiving thought (and thereby regulating it) until it's expressed. You have not accomplished anything meaningful with these provisions.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by this, or how it relates to the freedom to hold an opinion or a belief?

Prisoners of conscience. Refer to the long-ass OOC note in my OP.

What you think or believe is not an arbitrary or reductive characteristic. I read your long-ass OOC note and that's my point; you're bringing anti-discrimination provisions regarding actual arbitrary and reductive characteristics (i.e., skin color, national origin; and the list goes on with things you do not choose for yourself and cannot be expected to change) into a proposal about things that ARE NOT arbitrary and reductive (you do choose your opinions and beliefs for yourself, and we can all expect our opinions and beliefs to occasionally change).

Would you instead accept Article a(iii) if it banned members from

"requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement forms part of a prescribed oath" ?

That definitely solves problems around traditional aspects of state service and witness swearing, although do bear in mind that the term "oath" just means a solemn promise. You may want to refine the concept further to avoid nations, say, requiring all citizens and visitors alike to swear an "oath" denouncing certain heretical beliefs and opinions.

prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against: * * * any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,

I don't think I could ever support a resolution that prohibits the WA from discriminating against a government due to their actions. I feel like discrimination based on conduct is pretty legitimate.

GA#440 allows a WA committee to sanction member states in non-compliance with GA resolutions already. Please elaborate on what you mean, other than that.

Well, for starters this doesn't stop individuals being coercively brainwashed or otherwise help them do whatever they want with their brains or whatever. In your mind, what does this provision even do? How does the WA discriminate based on actions, except by passing laws and enforcing them?

More to the point, the premise is wrong. Discrimination based on action is legitimate. You should not be prohibiting it. With respect to the WA in particular: the future will bring actions we cannot presently contemplate, much less legislate on. The WA and its agents must remain free to respond to those actions.

[Baldia]

Humans are emotional creatures. They desperately need to be led. I urge the members of this assembly to reconsider their decision to vote illegal on this matter. [THE LAND OF KINGS AND EMPERORS] is a vastly large region consisting of many countries and it's inhabitants. It is dangerous to give trillions of citizens too much opinion and belief. What happens when they start rebelling against their countries or this very own assembly? It would prove difficult to subdue trillions of citizens, not to mention how costly the process would be. It is far too dangerous and this unprecedented event would destroy our beautiful region as we know it.

[Heavens Reach]

Humans are emotional creatures. They desperately need to be led. I urge the members of this assembly to reconsider their decision to vote illegal on this matter. [THE LAND OF KINGS AND EMPERORS] is a vastly large region consisting of many countries and it's inhabitants. It is dangerous to give trillions of citizens too much opinion and belief. What happens when they start rebelling against their countries or this very own assembly? It would prove difficult to subdue trillions of citizens, not to mention how costly the process would be. It is far too dangerous and this unprecedented event would destroy our beautiful region as we know it.

Ambassador, I don't think that anyone has voted on this matter at all, let alone voted it illegal. I also don't think this really engages with the principle components of this draft as it's written. Finally, you can't stop people from having opinions and beliefs, just from expressing them.

OOC: this seems like it might not be in the spirit of how drafting is done in the forums. I recommend lurking a bit more to see how things work here, and possibly giving the stickies at the top of the forum a read too.

[Tinhampton]

Still working on this. Somehow.

This proposal was indeed ruled illegal when first submitted in August 2021. All wrongthink has since been purged from this proposal.

[Juansonia]

All wrongthink has since been purged from this proposal.

Orwell society co-author confirmed?

[Heidgaudr]

Article a(iii) has its roots in certain American proposals to ban or at least disincentivise the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools - see, for instance, New Hampshire HB 544 ("The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II") or Chip Roy's federally proposed CRT Act ("The term ‘‘promote’’, when used with respect to a race-based theory described in subsection (c), means... (C) to compel students to profess a belief in such theories.") I added Article d Article c later to clarify that this is the only regulation of speech directly imposed by my proposal.

OOC: You do realize that the anti-CRT bills in the US are really fucking terrible, right? For example, in some states if a teacher wants to use The Diary of Anne Frank in the classroom, they have to also use a source of an opposing view point, like Mein Kampf.

iii. requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs

"Our nation firmly believes in the Paradox of Tolerance, and we will oppose any bill which would prevent us from curbing horrific hate speech."

OOC: This would prevent Germany from enforcing its laws against Holocaust denial.

[Pangurstan]

Article a(iii) has its roots in certain American proposals to ban or at least disincentivise the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools - see, for instance, New Hampshire HB 544 ("The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II") or Chip Roy's federally proposed CRT Act ("The term ‘‘promote’’, when used with respect to a race-based theory described in subsection (c), means... (C) to compel students to profess a belief in such theories.") I added Article d Article c later to clarify that this is the only regulation of speech directly imposed by my proposal.

OOC: You do realize that the anti-CRT bills in the US are really fucking terrible, right? For example, in some states if a teacher wants to use The Diary of Anne Frank in the classroom, they have to also use a source of an opposing view point, like Mein Kampf.

iii. requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs

"Our nation firmly believes in the Paradox of Tolerance, and we will oppose any bill which would prevent us from curbing horrific hate speech."

OOC: This would prevent Germany from enforcing its laws against Holocaust denial.

This proposal only establishes freedom to hold an opinion. It doesn't establish the freedom to share/express that opinion.

[Heidgaudr]

OOC: You do realize that the anti-CRT bills in the US are really fucking terrible, right? For example, in some states if a teacher wants to use The Diary of Anne Frank in the classroom, they have to also use a source of an opposing view point, like Mein Kampf.


"Our nation firmly believes in the Paradox of Tolerance, and we will oppose any bill which would prevent us from curbing horrific hate speech."

OOC: This would prevent Germany from enforcing its laws against Holocaust denial.

This proposal only establishes freedom to hold an opinion. It doesn't establish the freedom to share/express that opinion.

"What's the point of having an opinion if you're not able to express it, then? The ability to express one's opinion is a vital part of opinion and belief. So either it does nothing or it enables the intolerant to spread their beliefs. Either situation is unsatisfactory."

[Pangurstan]

This proposal only establishes freedom to hold an opinion. It doesn't establish the freedom to share/express that opinion.

"What's the point of having an opinion if you're not able to express it, then? The ability to express one's opinion is a vital part of opinion and belief. So either it does nothing or it enables the intolerant to spread their beliefs. Either situation is unsatisfactory."

It prevents governments from forcing individuals to say things they disagree with.

[Juansonia]

This proposal only establishes freedom to hold an opinion. It doesn't establish the freedom to share/express that opinion.

"What's the point of having an opinion if you're not able to express it, then? The ability to express one's opinion is a vital part of opinion and belief. So either it does nothing or it enables the intolerant to spread their beliefs. Either situation is unsatisfactory."

"It essentially gives a right to remain silent, which must be respected in the context of affirming, expressing, retracting, or rejecting any belief. It does not give a right to actively affirm, express, retract, or reject a belief - hate-speech law can still apply, as can other restrictions on speech and statement. However, a refusal to make a statement, or stating such a refusal, cannot be punished beyond that necessary for courts, tribunals, and similar processes. It gives the right to have a belief, and the right to silence in regards to it. In other words, expressions of a belief or lack thereof may be prohibited, but may not be compelled."
- Maria Fernanda-Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Tinhampton]

I do not agree with all aspects of CRT bans. But I do agree that people should not be coerced into expressing beliefs they do not hold.

Article a(iii) concerns the right not to express one's beliefs. The right to express them is protected by other resolutions and, as per Article c, not covered by this one.