[DRAFT #3] [GA#537 REPLACEMENT] Protecting Peaceful Assembly

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 3,824
Word count: 579

ICly by Kevin Mitchell again.

OOC:

• Prospective replacement for Right to Assemble, which I am seeking to repeal.
• RtA enjoys a consensus with Right to Peaceful Assembly on the issues of permitting peaceful assembly, protecting organisation and participation, and requiring neutral standards on advocacy of violence which I support; I side with Maowymondham on permitting legal activity and with GC on Article 5 of RtA.
• And, of course, I make no apologies for taking inspiration from the Human Rights Committee's General Comment no.37 - particularly paragraphs 19 (Article c(i)'s "broadly... violen[t]" requirement), 22 (Article a(ii)'s facial-neutrality requirement), 24 (Article h), 40 (Article c(iv)), 45 (the danger-to-health criterion in Article a(iii), although this was also inspired by GA#537's failings as admitted by its author), and 66 (Articles e(ii) and f(iii)).
  
  
• You may be asking why I believe that this is a Civil Rights proposal - despite RtA, RtPA, and Freedom of Assembly all being Furtherment of Democracy proposals.
  
  • This primarily lies in the fact that - in line with paragraph 12 of GC37 - I make no requirement that peaceful assemblies express an opinion, although I used that very minimal requirement in Draft 1. (RtA uses "articulating or advocating any belief or ambition;" RtPA uses to "advocate or pursue any cause, goal, ideology, or allegiance," FoA uses to "promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.") RtA and FoA both have a strong emphasis on how assembly can bring about political change; mine (obviously) does not.
  • An opinion, by definition, can be about both political topics (such as urging governments to take action on climate change) and non-political topics (such as urging the manager of one's favourite sports team to resign, or recommending the boycott of a movie directed by or starring an individual convicted or credibly accused of serious sexual assault).
  • In addition, Articles e and f of my proposal lay out basic standards regarding the rights of those who organise and participate in peaceful assemblies, with little to no regard for how political or apolitical those assemblies may be.

Protecting Peaceful Assembly
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Believing that freedom of expression cannot be truly guaranteed without a corresponding right to publicly and peacefully assemble, whether to express opinions or for some other purpose, the General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "peaceful assembly" as any public, non-violent gathering of two or more people,
   2. a "restrictable assembly" as any peaceful assembly where:
      
      • the organizers or participants in the assembly engage in an act which is illegal under the publically promulgated and known law of the jurisdiction(s) in which the assembly occurs,
      • the organizers or participants in the assembly explicitly incite, demand, or request participants or observers engage in actual and imminent unlawful behaviour, or
      • the time, method, manner, or any combination thereof of the assembly constitutes a demonstrable danger to the health or safety of the participants or general public, and
   3. "relevant actors" as a member state where a peaceful assembly is occuring, the political subdivision(s) it occurs in, and law enforcement agencies ordinarily operating in said member state(s) and political subdivision(s),
2. proclaims that all inhabitants of member states have the right to organise and participate in peaceful assembly (subject only to Articles c and d), and to that extent forbids member states from prohibiting the acts of organising and participating in peaceful assemblies,
3. permits relevant actors to break up, prohibit, and otherwise prevent or end a peaceful assembly where it is:
   
   1. necessary to permit the operation or functioning of the emergency services or other essential services,
   2. requested by the owner of private property where that assembly is occuring, or
   3. in accordance with reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and/or location of assemblies, provided such restrictions are publically communicated, objective, facially neutral, and evenly administered without prejudice,
4. further permits relevant actors to break up, prohibit, and otherwise prevent or end any restrictable assembly, save that they may not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way while doing so,
5. requires that relevant actors:
   
   1. permit any activity that is legal outside of peaceful assemblies, where that activity occurs within that assembly,
   2. refrain from requiring any person to partake in any assembly, except where the assembly is within the course of that person’s employment and the assembly does not pertain to a topic that (taking into account the political context of the relevant actor) can be reasonably regarded as partisan,
   3. permit all peaceful assemblies except as provided for above, and
   4. refrain from retaliation or discrimination against any organiser or participant in an assembly that is not subject to Articles c or d,
6. clarifies that relevant actors:
   
   1. may not classify an assembly as restrictable on safety grounds due to the actual or expected response or behaviour of third parties,
   2. may arrest or detain participants in an assembly on the same grounds and manner they would be permitted to outside of an assembly, and
   3. must act in a legal and proportionate manner when acting under Articles c and d, and must employ the least restrictive means possible in such cases,
7. further clarifies that nothing in this resolution requires relevant actors to break up, prohibit, or otherwise prevent any assembly, nor prohibits them from adopting less restrictive policies,
8. encourages groups who object to the messages being conveyed by a peaceful assembly to organise their own peaceful assembly to counter such messages, and
9. urges member states and their emergency services to protect participants in peaceful assemblies as they happen.

Co-authors: Desmosthenes and Burke, Maowi

[Tinhampton]

Ye Olde Draftes

Believing that freedom of expression cannot be truly guaranteed without a corresponding right to publicly and peacefully assemble to express opinions (especially on important societal issues), the General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "activity that is illegal" in a given location as an activity for which there exists a regularly and consistently enforced law in that location prohibiting it from being carrying out,
   2. a "peaceful assembly" as any gathering of two or more people which intends to express an opinion through non-violent means,
   3. a "restricted assembly" as any peaceful assembly which happens in any location in a member state which promotes violence or any activity that is illegal in that location (provided that such promotion is defined in a facially neutral manner), or which actually engages in any activity that is illegal in that location, and
   4. "LEAs" as law enforcement agencies operating within a member state,
2. proclaims that all inhabitants of member states have the right to organise and participate in peaceful assembly, subject to Article c,
3. clarifies that:
   
   1. member states, their political subdivisions, and LEAs may prohibit or break up restricted assemblies and any gathering of two or more people which broadly expresses opinions through violence,
   2. members, their political subdivisions, and LEAs may temporarily break up peaceful assemblies to the extent that doing so is necessary to allow for the passage of emergency service vehicles like ambulances, and
   3. owners of private property where any assembly occurs may prohibit or break up those assemblies on that property, but
   4. assemblies must only be prohibited or broken up pursuant to this Article in a legal, proportionate manner that is the least restrictive means of prohibiting them or breaking them up,
4. further clarifies that, despite Article c(i), members, their political subdivisions, and LEAs must not prohibit or break up restricted assemblies where those assemblies are only classified as restricted assemblies because they advocate for a change in any law or policy,
5. requires members, their political subdivisions, and LEAs, in relation to any peaceful assembly, to:
   
   1. permit any activity that is legal outside of peaceful assemblies, where that activity occurs within that assembly, and to
   2. refrain from requiring any person who is permitted to organise or participate in that assembly to actually organise or participate in it,
6. further requires members, their political subdivisions, and LEAs, in relation to any peaceful assembly which has not been (or is otherwise ineligible to be) prohibited or broken up pursuant to Article c, to:
   
   1. refrain from prohibiting the acts of organising or participating in that assembly,
   2. refrain from retaliating against, discriminating against, or permitting retaliation or discrimination against any organiser or participant of that assembly,
   3. refrain in particular from prohibiting any person from organising or participating in peaceful assemblies because they have organised or participated in that assembly while conducting themselves lawfully, and to
   4. prohibit acts intended to deter individuals who intend to participate in that assembly from actually participating in it, except where those individuals seek to injure or kill other participants,
7. permits LEAs to arrest participants in peaceful assemblies on the suspicion of committing an activity that is illegal, despite Article b, and
8. urges member states and their emergency services to protect participants in those peaceful assemblies not described by Article c (especially larger assemblies) as they happen.

Co-author: Desmosthenes and Burke

Believing that freedom of expression cannot be truly guaranteed without a corresponding right to publicly and peacefully assemble to express opinions (especially on important societal issues), the General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "peaceful assembly" as any gathering of two or more people which intends to express an opinion through non-violent means,
   2. a "restricted assembly" as any peaceful assembly which promotes for violence or illegal activity (provided that such promotion is defined in a facially neutral manner) or otherwise actually engages in illegal activity, and
   3. "LEAs" as law enforcement agencies operating within a member state,
2. proclaims that all inhabitants of member states have the right to organise and participate in peaceful assembly, subject to Article c,
3. clarifies that:
   
   1. member states, including LEAs, may prohibit or break up restricted assemblies,
   2. owners of private property in which peaceful assemblies occur may prohibit or break up restricted assemblies on such property,
   3. restricted assemblies may only be prohibited or broken up in a legal, proportionate manner that is the least restrictive means of prohibiting them or breaking them up, and
   4. gatherings which broadly express opinions through violence may be prohibited or broken up, but only in compliance with the standards of Article c(iii),
4. requires members, their political subdivisions, and LEAs, in relation to any peaceful assembly, to:
   
   1. permit any activity which is legal outside of peaceful assemblies, where that activity occurs within that assembly, and to
   2. refrain from requiring any person who is permitted to organise or participate in that assembly to actually organise or participate in it,
5. further requires members, their political subdivisions, and LEAs, in relation to any peaceful assembly which has not been (or is otherwise ineligible to be) prohibited or broken up pursuant to Article c, to:
   
   1. refrain from prohibiting the acts of organising or participating in that assembly,
   2. refrain from retaliating against, discriminating against, or permitting retaliation or discrimination against any organiser or participant of that assembly,
   3. refrain in particular from prohibiting any person from organising or participating in peaceful assemblies because they have organised or participated in that assembly while conducting themselves lawfully, and to
   4. prohibit acts intended to deter individuals who intend to participate in that assembly from actually participating in it, except where those individuals seek to injure or kill other participants, and
6. urges member states and their emergency services to protect participants in those peaceful assemblies not described by Article c (especially larger assemblies) as they happen.

[Fachumonn]

S u p p o r t

[The Orwell Society]

Jezus, Tin, you churn out more drafts than a bunch of horny rabbits during mating season do ther rabbits!, er… support!

[Tinhampton]

Thanks, LOL! (Still awaiting comments of substance. Arguments that "this duplicates GA#537" will be ignored because I'll be submitting this after I repeal 537.)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Mr. Mitchell, we are concerned that the combination of a.ii and c.i is excessively broad and would permit a member to state to effectively harass its political opponents and/or prohibit demonstrations, protests, and/or assemblies protesting its policies and actions.
(OOC: As an example: the US government's definitions one could argue with a straight face that a march in favour of recognizing the Hamas led government in Gaza as promoting terrorism. A gay pride parade prior to 2004 in the US could easily be described as promoting illegal activity in multiple states, a rally to encourage an atheist to run for political office would be promoting illegal activity in several states [we all know those laws are unconstitutional but they have not been challenged so they are technically still in force], etc).

We would also suggest that c.ii be changed to read "owners of private property may prohibit or break any assemblies on such property" or something else properly respectful of a property owners right to control his property and decide who may or may not use it.

[Tinhampton]

Mitchell: Multiple changes have been made in collaboration with my colleague... Iulia Something, I think; she's promised me further help on this draft in the coming days, as well. The Burkean delegation has been assigned co-author status accordingly. Most of the changes to my first three Articles were the result of her contributions, as is Article d.
Feargal Yurilevich, the Maowese ambassador, approached me in private earlier with the ideas for Articles c(ii) and g, based upon some concerns his nation and Wymondham's ambassador had pointed out with the old resolution on Freedom of Assembly. Although not as major or substantial as the Burkean proposals, I would also like to thank him for his work.

[Tinhampton]

Even further amendments have been made and Maowi is now an official co-author.

[Yerbanistan]

the organizers or participants in the assembly engage in an act which is illegal under the publically promulgated and known law of the jurisdiction(s) in which the assembly occurs,

OOC: What if a nation criminalizes the very act of assembly itself? Wouldn't that be an exploitable loophole to ban all assemblies?

[Tinhampton]

the organizers or participants in the assembly engage in an act which is illegal under the publically promulgated and known law of the jurisdiction(s) in which the assembly occurs,

OOC: What if a nation criminalizes the very act of assembly itself? Wouldn't that be an exploitable loophole to ban all assemblies?

Article b has been amended to clarify this.

[Tinhampton]

I am still working on this.

[Russia18]

HRE WA Ambassador Count Dimitri Ivanov: "Even though The Holy Russian Empire isn't a democracy, we support the freedom to assemble as long as it remains peaceful. We will remain neutral for now and make our decision will when you have finished."

[Tinhampton]

HRE WA Ambassador Count Dimitri Ivanov: "Even though The Holy Russian Empire isn't a democracy, we support the freedom to assemble as long as it remains peaceful. We will remain neutral for now and make our decision will when you have finished."

I have a complete draft. It is subject to revision in the coming days, but it will likely be very limited in scope. I intend to submit the repeal that will pave the way for this to be enacted on Friday or Saturday evening.

[Kenmoria]

“Based on clause e-ii, a state could not order its employed soldiers to take part in a parade, provided that said parade take place in a public place. That seems overly restrictive on the freedoms of the World Assembly’s constituent nations. Speaking more generally, clause e-ii seems as though, due to the rather broad definition of assembly, it could apply to a lot of mandatory activities which the police forces and governmental employees of nations ought to be required to do would be rendered optional.”

[Tinhampton]

“Based on clause e-ii, a state could not order its employed soldiers to take part in a parade, provided that said parade take place in a public place. That seems overly restrictive on the freedoms of the World Assembly’s constituent nations. Speaking more generally, clause e-ii seems as though, due to the rather broad definition of assembly, it could apply to a lot of mandatory activities which the police forces and governmental employees of nations ought to be required to do would be rendered optional.”

Mitchell: Should my Burkean and Maowese colleagues agree, I intend to amend Article e(ii) so that it applies "except where such organisation or participation is expected of them in discharging the regular duties of their employment." Your concerns will be implemented in some way, Mr Levitt - but if my friends disagree on my proposed attachment, I will let you know what the new consensus wording is instead.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We mentioned this is back-channel negotiations with Mr. Mitchell, but we would like to bring it forth for commentary from Kenmoria as well:

“Based on clause e-ii, a state could not order its employed soldiers to take part in a parade, provided that said parade take place in a public place. That seems overly restrictive on the freedoms of the World Assembly’s constituent nations. Speaking more generally, clause e-ii seems as though, due to the rather broad definition of assembly, it could apply to a lot of mandatory activities which the police forces and governmental employees of nations ought to be required to do would be rendered optional.”

We are not unsympathetic to this, however we wonder if it would be possible to amend the definition of an assembly in such a way so as to permit the state to require legitimate functions while still forclosing such abuses as ordering its personnel to appear at partisan political rallies, or participate in an anti-Bigtopian Lives Matter march, etc.

OOC: Or to be more blunt, how can we draw the line between something fairly benign and something that is essentially violating the rights of the worker/soldier/etc. Or even more bluntly: Armistice Day Parade: probably not objectionable to the average soldier. Mandatory participation in a Donald Trump campaign rally: unseemly in the extreme.

[Kenmoria]

We mentioned this is back-channel negotiations with Mr. Mitchell, but we would like to bring it forth for commentary from Kenmoria as well:

“Based on clause e-ii, a state could not order its employed soldiers to take part in a parade, provided that said parade take place in a public place. That seems overly restrictive on the freedoms of the World Assembly’s constituent nations. Speaking more generally, clause e-ii seems as though, due to the rather broad definition of assembly, it could apply to a lot of mandatory activities which the police forces and governmental employees of nations ought to be required to do would be rendered optional.”

We are not unsympathetic to this, however we wonder if it would be possible to amend the definition of an assembly in such a way so as to permit the state to require legitimate functions while still forclosing such abuses as ordering its personnel to appear at partisan political rallies, or participate in an anti-Bigtopian Lives Matter march, etc.

“This is a very difficult matter, because what is partisan in one nation might not be partisan in another. In Kenmoria, for example, a parade in support of the monarchy would be very much a political stance, with the monarchy only being entirely separated from the state within the last century. However, other nations have a monarch as a formal commander-in-chief, where parades for the monarchy are commonplace and essentially apolitical.

As a result, I suggest the following rewriting of clause e-ii: ‘Refrain from requiring any person to partake in an assembly, except where the assembly is within the course of that person’s employment, and the assembly does not pertain to a topic reasonably regarded as partisan, taking into account the political context of the relevant actor,’. There is admittedly a bit of a loophole with regards to ‘reasonably’, but I cannot presently think of better wording.”

[Tinhampton]

We mentioned this is back-channel negotiations with Mr. Mitchell, but we would like to bring it forth for commentary from Kenmoria as well:



We are not unsympathetic to this, however we wonder if it would be possible to amend the definition of an assembly in such a way so as to permit the state to require legitimate functions while still forclosing such abuses as ordering its personnel to appear at partisan political rallies, or participate in an anti-Bigtopian Lives Matter march, etc.

“This is a very difficult matter, because what is partisan in one nation might not be partisan in another. In Kenmoria, for example, a parade in support of the monarchy would be very much a political stance, with the monarchy only being entirely separated from the state within the last century. However, other nations have a monarch as a formal commander-in-chief, where parades for the monarchy are commonplace and essentially apolitical.

As a result, I suggest the following rewriting of clause e-ii: ‘Refrain from requiring any person to partake in an assembly, except where the assembly is within the course of that person’s employment, and the assembly does not pertain to a topic reasonably regarded as partisan, taking into account the political context of the relevant actor,’. There is admittedly a bit of a loophole with regards to ‘reasonably’, but I cannot presently think of better wording.”

Mitchell: I have adopted your suggestion with some changes for readability, after unbelievably protracted discussions with Iulia and Feargal. But I still fully intend to submit this... soon! Or sooner. Ha... ha. Ha.

[Tinhampton]

Ce n'est pas un bump

[Russia18]

Ce n'est pas un bump

"The Holy Russian Empire fully endorses your Proposal."

[Tinhampton]

Thanks. Still working on this; will submit upon the repeal of GA#537, which I expect to be around the end of March - if not the first couple of days of April.

Eleven proposals are currently in queue. Here they are, alongside their expected dates of getting to vote:

Protecting Press Freedoms [Feb 4th]
The Rights, Wrongs, Duties, And Powers Of WA States [Feb 8th]
Popular Statecraft [Feb 12th]
Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials [Feb 16th]
Repeal "Suppress International Piracy" [Feb 20th]
Regulating Medical Genetic Modification [Feb 24th]
Action on Period Poverty [Feb 28th]
Repeal "Drug Decriminalization Act" [Mar 4th]
Legal Equality Act [Mar 8th]
Repeal "Asbestos Consumption, Disposal and Worker Protection" [Mar 12th]
Repeal "Restrictions on Hydraulic Fracturing" [Mar 16th]

I'll submit Repeal "Right to Assemble" on Monday. It'll go to vote no earlier than March 20th. Depending on whether Repeal "Foreign Copyright Recognition" (Heidgaudr) and/or Voting Rights for Former Prisoners (Millenhaal) are submitted this year, it may go to vote as late as March 28th.

This means I can't submit this before March 24th in any event. I'm not doing an April Fool's Day submission - people will, understandably, be more focused on the minigame than the proposal queue. But I am fairly confident this will either be submitted in the last week of March or the start of April.

[Tinhampton]

Hiya.