[DRAFT] Repeal Freedom of Association

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

I think you’re missing something sort of key here: it did fill a niche that hadn’t been dealt with before in WA law. Freedom of assembly, which had been guaranteed, ≠freedom of association.

"We would concur with this. We would also find that the objection against the resolution's exception being limited to criminal law is inadequate -- could a member nation not simply make defamation a crime, for example, as done in the Ice States?"

"However, we have no other objections to the content at this time."

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[The Serendipitous]

I think you’re missing something sort of key here: it did fill a niche that hadn’t been dealt with before in WA law. Freedom of assembly, which had been guaranteed, ≠freedom of association.

OOC:

If you can demonstrate an example where the protections afforded in 436 and 537 are not sufficient, I will write a replacement.

[The Serendipitous]

I think you’re missing something sort of key here: it did fill a niche that hadn’t been dealt with before in WA law. Freedom of assembly, which had been guaranteed, ≠freedom of association.

"We would concur with this. We would also find that the objection against the resolution's exception being limited to criminal law is inadequate -- could a member nation not simply make defamation a crime, for example, as done in the Ice States?"

"However, we have no other objections to the content at this time."

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"As an entity without written law, perhaps we are not the aptest to answer this. However, we believe there to be many reasons to differentiate civil and criminal law."

[Kenmoria]

“Could another ambassador clarify what GA #550 does that GA #436 and GA #537 did not accomplish? I am feeling uncertain about that point, not being able to remember well the passage of any of those three. On this draft, you are missing the word ‘which’ after ‘national scale’ in subclause ‘a’ of the third clause.”

[The Serendipitous]

“Could another ambassador clarify what GA #550 does that GA #436 and GA #537 did not accomplish? I am feeling uncertain about that point, not being able to remember well the passage of any of those three. On this draft, you are missing the word ‘which’ after ‘national scale’ in subclause ‘a’ of the third clause.”

OOC: I don't think the change was strictly needed but I have made it to improve the flow.

I have placed a draft for potential replacement on the drafting floor to get potential feedback. Given the above point, I am still not sure that such a resolution is needed, but seeing enough people come out in support of one has at least led me to place one up for consideration.

[The Serendipitous]

OOC: I have slightly amended the penultimate point for repeal, to better make way for my proposed replacement.

[The Ice States]

"We believe the target's largest flaw should also be mentioned -- remaining entirely unclear on what constitutes 'actively undermin[ing] national security'. Would, for example, reporting on something that could incite civil rebellion be considered undermining national security? As an example of this, my revelation of certain activities by the former Ice government resulted in mass civil upheaval in the Ice States. Even if a claim of national security reasons is bona fide, there are many borderline cases that certainly necessitate clear standards on what constitutes undermining national security."

"As an entity without written law, perhaps we are not the aptest to answer this. However, we believe there to be many reasons to differentiate civil and criminal law."

"While, uh, I do not speak for my predecessor-ish, the issue is that the target's exemption specifically allows only 'criminal penalties', and civil penalties would colourably not be governments prohibiting citizens from 'associat[ing] with any organisation of their choosing', but rather citizens or other legal persons prohibiting as such. Enforcing criminal penalties for civil law is problematic; if a nation wants to enforce criminal penalties for 'mass defamation of opponents', it may make defamation a crime (as was in the previous regime in the Ice States), or only allow civil penalties for association with such a group."

"All in all, we find that the particular argument as to civil law ought to be removed. There is already a sufficient case with the national criminal law and security arguments, the issue with ambiguity on national security and hate, and the conflict of interest sections, to argue for a repeal of the target."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[The Serendipitous]

"We believe the target's largest flaw should also be mentioned -- remaining entirely unclear on what constitutes 'actively undermin[ing] national security'. Would, for example, reporting on something that could incite civil rebellion be considered undermining national security? As an example of this, my revelation of certain activities by the former Ice government resulted in mass civil upheaval in the Ice States. Even if a claim of national security reasons is bona fide, there are many borderline cases that certainly necessitate clear standards on what constitutes undermining national security."

"We appreciate the delegate's stance on this, but it is not realistic law to outline every possible instance of national security. It is probably best left to the Independent Adjudicative Office to judge these instances on a case-by-case basis."

"As an entity without written law, perhaps we are not the aptest to answer this. However, we believe there to be many reasons to differentiate civil and criminal law."

"While, uh, I do not speak for my predecessor-ish, the issue is that the target's exemption specifically allows only 'criminal penalties', and civil penalties would colourably not be governments prohibiting citizens from 'associat[ing] with any organisation of their choosing', but rather citizens or other legal persons prohibiting as such. Enforcing criminal penalties for civil law is problematic; if a nation wants to enforce criminal penalties for 'mass defamation of opponents', it may make defamation a crime (as was in the previous regime in the Ice States), or only allow civil penalties for association with such a group."

"All in all, we find that the particular argument as to civil law ought to be removed. There is already a sufficient case with the national criminal law and security arguments, the issue with ambiguity on national security and hate, and the conflict of interest sections, to argue for a repeal of the target."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

"We have taken your feedback into account, and lightly changed the arguments. The argument regarding political conflicts of interest has switched placed with the argument regarding criminal and civil law, with the latter argument being changed to reflect a more genuine issue."