[DRAFT] ‘Freedom of Assembly and Association’

[Bears Armed]

”Discussion during drafting of — and a challenge against — the proposal “Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations” has led urrs to conclude that replacing GA resolution #27 ‘Freedom of Assembly’ with a new resolution which more comprehensively defines people’s rights in these matters would be a good idea. As this organisation’s rules would not allow urrs to submit that replacement while GAR #27 itself was still in force, it will obviously be necessary to repeal GAR #27 beforepaw, and we have already entered into a discussion about how to achieve that. Now, here is our first draft for a potential Replacement as well. Finalising this proposal, however, might not be possible until official rulings have been made both about precisely what GAR #27 does do and on the aforementioned existing challenge.”

Fourth Draft

Freedom of Assembly and Association

Catgeory: Civil Rights
Strength:

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom for people to assemble and associate in pursuit of mutual interests (e.g. charity, culture, education, politics, religion, socialising), is a fundamental right which should not be restricted further than public safety truly requires, and therefore should be protected under national and international law;

Hereby states that Freedom is a compelling practical purpose for protecting these rights and, subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, requires member nations to uphold the following rights for all legally competent people under their jurisdiction except where an activity is for economic purposes and other GA legislation requires or at least does not forbid its further regulation:

1.) People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they want (charitable, cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or of law-suits (other than for non-performance of contractual duties) for doing so, and threats or force may not be used to prevent this, unless
a/ The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people, otherwise-illegal harm to non-sapient animals, damage to other people’s property, or breach of WA laws against environmental damage.
b/ The assembly is already causing or inciting such harm or damage;
c/ This would pose a significant threat of physical harm (other than by government action) to attendees;
d/ This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at that site;
e/ The people are required as part of current military service, or because of charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
f/ Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation that either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
g/ The event is a private one with invitations required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;

2.) People have the right to form organisations to promote any purpose for which they could legally assemble: Organisations created by or voluntarily accepting sponsorship from a government or other outside body can required to accept some control by that body, subject to any limits agreed when the connection began, but an organisation otherwise has the rights not only to promote its causes and to hold assemblies, subject to the limits set in Article One, but also
a/ To remain outside government service;
b/To determine its own organisational structure;
c/ To set its own limits on attendance at meetings, membership, and holding its official positions, as long as those rules do not require applicants to perform acts that would be criminal offences if done otherwise.

3.) Governments are not allowed to set fees, travel limits, or other barriers, aimed specifically at hindering assemblies or organisations legal under the preceding articles.

4.) People have the rights to not attend assemblies and to not join organisations, unless
a/ The person is required to do this as part of legally mandated education, and it will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
b/ The person is a convicted criminal, this activity is required under their sentence, and it will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
c/ The person is required to do this as part of legally mandated military service, and this will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity (except that nations can bar serving military personnel from political office);
d/ The person took their current job, and agreed to this activity then or later as a condition of employment, by free and informed choice.

5.) No organisation can hold a monopoly in law over any general field of activity (e.g. as the only allowed political party [overall or for one doctrine], religion, sect, campaign for a cause, youth movement, league for a sport), except that this neither forbids constitutional sole authority for national or local government nor requires governments to accept organisations into their service.

6.) For people who are not legally competent, relevant choices about these activities shall be made by whoever stands in loco parentis for them, except as governments legislate to let minors who have reached least three-quarters the relevant age of majority make their own choices in political or religious matters.

The main functional differences from the previous draft are to clarify that the rule against organisations holding monopolies does not allow any organisations which are competing in some way with government agencies to demand recognition as government agencies, to give non-governmental organisations explicit protection against non-consensual conversion into government agencies, and an expansion of the former Article Two (which is now moved to become Article Three) so that it specifically protects organisations as well as assemblies. Most of the other changes are just tinkering to get the length back down after those three additions.

Its length now comes to around 4’870 characters, excluding any added because NS counts something differently from Word, so it should be okay in that respect.

[box]Freedom of Assembly and Association

Catgeory: Civil Rights
Strength:

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom for people to assemble and associate in pursuit of mutual interests (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or other), is a fundamental right which should not be restricted further than public safety truly requires, and therefore should be protected under national and international law;

Hereby states that Freedom is a compelling practical purpose for protecting these rights and, subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, requires member nations to uphold the following rights for all legally competent people within their jurisdictions except where an activity is for economic purposes and other GA legislation requires or at least does not forbid its further regulation:

1.) People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they want (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or of law-suits (other than for non-performance of contractual duties) for doing so, and threats or force may not be used to prevent this, unless
a/ The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people otherwise-illegal harm to non-sapient animals, damage to other peoples’ property, or breach of WA laws against environmental damage.
b/ The assembly is already inciting or causing such harm or damage;
c/ This would pose a significant threat of physical harm (other than by government action) to attendees;
d/ This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at that site;
e/ The people are required as part of current military service, or because of charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
f/ Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation that either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
g/ The event is a private one with invitations required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;

2.) Governments are not allowed to set fees or travel limits aimed specifically at hindering any assembly legal under Article One.

3.) People have the right to form organisations to promote any purpose for which they could legally assemble: If such an organisation is created by a government or any other body, or voluntarily accepts sponsorship from any outside body, then it can required to accept some control by that government or other body, subject to any limits agreed when the connection began, but it otherwise has the rights not only to promote its causes and to hold assemblies, subject to the limits given in Article One, but also
a/ To set its own rules about organisational structure;
b/ To set its own rules for attendance at meetings, and for membership and holding its official positions, as long as those rules do not require applicants to perform acts that would be criminal offences if done for other reasons.

4.) People have the rights to not attend assemblies and to not join organisations, unless
a/ The person is legally required to undergo education, a relevant authority decides that this activity would be suitably educational, and it will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
b/ The person is a convicted criminal, this activity is required under their sentence, and it will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
c/ The organisation is a part of their nation’s armed forces in which they legally must serve, and this will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity (except that nations can bar serving military personnel from political office);
d/ The person took their current job without legal or illegal compulsion, and this activity was clearly specified then or voluntarily agreed by informed consent later as a condition of employment.

5.) No organisation can hold a monopoly by law over any general field of activity (e.g. as the only allowed political party [either overall or for a specific doctrine], religion, sect, campaign for a cause, youth movement, league for a sport), except that this does not forbid constitutional sole authority for national or local government.

6.) For people who are not legally competent, relevant choices about assemblies and organisations shall be made by whoever stands in loco parentis for them, except as governments legislate that minors of at least three-quarters the locally usual age for attaining legal competence can choose for themselves in political or religious matters.

This should now be just within the maximum length allowed. (Word says around 4945 characters, including spaces, although that would include the formatting code on “in loco parentis” which I think NS doesn’t count: NS does, however, tend to count something [probably line-breaks] as taking more characters per case than Word does…)
Yes, I still need to add the ‘list code’, if I’m going to do so: That can wait until the actual wording is settled.
I still need to check one cause in an existing resolution, and think about that for a bit, before finalising Article Six here.

Changes from second draft
Section of “Hereby” clause about economic activities rewritten for [hopefully] greater clarity.
Each case of “Article [Number as word]” replaced by “[Number as figure].)”
Article Two’s ban on government use of threat or force to prevent assemblies that are legal under Article One moved to the first section of Article One, to close a potential loophole involving ‘1.c’.
“otherwise–illegal harm to non-sapient animals” added to Article One’s list of potentially-forbidden activities.
Article Five now says “hold a monopoly in law” rather than “legally hold a monopoly”, and its list of examples has been expanded slightly to show its range more effectively.
Age threshold in Article Six altered, from two-thirds to three-quarters of the local age of majority.
Various changes in wording to shorten the text slightly, to help with keeping it within the maximum length allowed. Various changes in wording to try improving clarification of some points, especially where the effects of shortened text had to be allowed for.

_________________________________________________________________________

[box]Freedom of Assembly and Association

Catgeory: Civil Rights
Strength:

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom for people to assemble and associate in pursuit of mutual interest (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or other), is a fundamental right that should not be restricted further than public safety truly requires, and therefore should be protected under national and international law;

Hereby states that Freedom is a compelling practical purpose for protecting these rights and, subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, requires member nations to uphold the following rights for all legally competent people within their jurisdictions except where an assembly or organisation is for economic purposes, and other GA legislation allows or requires it to be further regulated.

Article One
People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they want (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or of law-suits (other than for non-performance of contractual duties) for doing so, unless
a/ The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people or damage to others’ property, or environmental damage in violation of WA legislation;
b/ The assembly is already causing or inciting such harm or damage;
c/ This would pose a significant threat of physical harm to attendees;
d/ This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at that site;
e/ The people are required as part of current military service, or because of charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
f/ Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation that either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
g/ The event is a private one with invitations required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;

Article Two
Governments are not allowed to set fees or travel limits aimed specifically at hindering any assemblies legal under Article One, nor to use threats or force for this purpose.

Article Three
People have the right to form organisations to promote any purpose for which they could legally assemble: If such an organisation is created by a government or any other body, or voluntarily accepts sponsorship from any outside body, then it can required to accept some control by that government or other body, subject to any limits agreed when the connection began, but it otherwise has the rights not only to promote its causes and to hold assemblies, subject to the limits given in Article One, but also
a/ To set its own rules about organisational structure;
b/ To set its own rules for attendance at meetings, and for membership and holding its official positions, as long as those rules do not require applicants to perform acts that would be criminal offences if done for other reasons.

Article Four
People have the rights to not attend assemblies and to not join organisations, unless
a/ The person is legally required to undergo education, a relevant authority decides that this activity would be suitably educational, and it will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
b/ The person is a convicted criminal, this activity is required under their sentence, and it will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
c/ The organisation is a part of their nation’s armed forces in which they legally must serve, and this will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity (except that nations can bar serving military personnel from political office);
d/ The person entered their current job without legal or illegal compulsion, and joining this organisation was clearly specified at that time or voluntarily agreed by informed consent later as a condition of employment.

Article Five
No organisation can legally hold a monopoly in any general field of ideological activity (e.g. as the only allowed political party either overall or for a particular doctrine, only allowed religion, or only allowed sect of a religion), but this does not forbid constitutional roles as sole authority for government.

Article Six
For people who are not legally competent, choices about assemblies and organisations shall be made by whoever stands in loco parentis for them, except as governments legislate that minors of at least two-thirds the usual relevant age for legal competence can choose for themselves in political or religious matters.

Changes from first draft
Alterations that were already made provisionally to the first draft (with strike-through or red text).
The GA’s right to allow or require further regulation of assemblies & organisations that are for economic purposes is now stated clearly before all the list of rights to be upheld, rather than just at one point within that list.
Clauses ‘1.c’ & ‘1.d’ have been swapped in position.
Various changes in wording to shorten the text slightly, to get it back within the maximum length allowed. (Word’s counter says that it meets that limit, although only just, but experience suggest that Word’s counter counts something [probably line breaks] differently from NS’s own internal counter so that I’ll probably still need to reduce it by another 20-to-60 characters…)
Various changes in wording to try improving clarification of some points, especially where the effects of shortened text had to be allowed for.

Freedom of Assembly and Association

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Strong

Description: The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom for people to assemble and associate peacefully for purposes of mutual interest (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), is a fundamental right that should not be restricted any further than public safety truly requires, and that therefore should be protected under national and international law;

Hereby states that the interests of Freedom are a compelling practical purpose for protecting these rights and, subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, requires member nations to uphold the following rights for all legally competent people within their jurisdictions:

Article One
People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they choose (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or (unless employers sue for non-performance of contractual duties) prosecution for doing so, unless
a/ The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people or damage to other people’s property, or environmental damage in violation of WA legislation;
b/ The assembly is already causing or inciting such harm or damage;
c/ This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at the chosen site;
d/ This would pose a significant threat of physical harm to attendees;
d/ The people are required under their terms of employment as part of current military service, or in connection with charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
e/ Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation which either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
f/ The event is a private one for which an invitation is required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;
g/ The assembly or organisation is for economic purposes, and is of a type that other GA legislation allows member nations to restrict.

Article Two
Governments are not allowed to set fees or travel limits aimed specifically at hindering any assemblies legal under Article One, nor to use threats or force for this purpose.

Article Three
People have the right to form organisations to promote any purpose for which they could legally assemble: If such an organisation is created by a government or any other body, or voluntarily accepts sponsorship from any outside body, then it can required to accept some control by that government or other body, subject to any limits agreed when the connection began, but otherwise it has the rights not only to promote its causes and to hold assemblies, subject to the limits given in Article One, but also
a/ To set its own rules about organisational structure;
b/ To set its own rules for attendance at meetings, and for membership and holding its official positions, as long as those rules do not require applicants to perform acts that would be criminal offences if done for other reasons.

Article Four
People have the rights to NOT attend such assemblies and to NOT join such organisations, unless
a/ The person is legally required to undergo education, a relevant authority decides that the assembly or organisation is suitably educational, and this will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
b/ The person is a convicted criminal, participation in this assembly or organisation is required by their sentence, and this will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity;
c/ The organisation is a part of their nation’s armed forces in which they legally must serve, and this will neither require them to undergo political or religious indoctrination nor either compel or forbid them to take part in any political or religious activity (except that nations can bar serving military personnel from political office);
d/ The person entered their current job without legal or illegal compulsion, and joining this organisation was clearly specified at that time or voluntarily agreed by informed consent later as a condition of employment.

Article Five
No organisation can legally hold a monopoly in any general field of ideological activity e.g. as the only allowed political party either overall or for a particular concept, the only allowed religion, or the only allowed sect of a religion: This does not affect constitutional eligibility to form governments.

Article Six
For people who are not legally competent, decisions about attending assemblies and applying to join organisations shall be made by whoever stands in loco parentis for them, except that governments may legally allow minors who have reached at least two-thirds of the usual age locally for legal competence to reject those decisions in the case of political or religious assemblies and organisations.

“Article Five would not ban either theocratic or single-party systems of government, or require their rulers to share power, it would simply require their rulers to tolerate the existence of organised dissent within their nations. We recognise that this might still be considered a step too far by some governments represented here, and if continuing to include this clause seems likely to prevent passage of the resolution then we will — reluctantly — remove it.”

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC
I probably should have made the above post using this nation.
Anyway, as usual for the proposals that I submit, Bears Armed proper -- despite not itself being in the WA -- will comply fully with this proposed legislation.

[Kenmoria]

“Article three, specifically clause b, seems to be allowing discrimination in a rather worrying fashion. By giving organisations unlimited power to set their own membership standards, you appear to be banning member nations from enforcing anti-discrmination law. Although this isn’t a bad policy, it is one that shouldn’t be forced upon nations.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

“Article three, specifically clause b, seems to be allowing discrimination in a rather worrying fashion. By giving organisations unlimited power to set their own membership standards, you appear to be banning member nations from enforcing anti-discrmination law. Although this isn’t a bad policy, it is one that shouldn’t be forced upon nations.”

"I read that clause the opposite way, ambassador - if employment discrimination were carried out on behalf of an economic organization, that would be prima facie illegal. Therefore such discrimination by religious or political organizations would fall under "acts that would be criminal offences if done for other reasons," and easily - and legally! - suppressed by member states."

[Uan aa Boa]

People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they choose (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or prosecution for doing so, unless... The people are required under their terms of employment, or in connection with charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;

You wish to allow governments to arrest or prosecute people for breaching their contract of employment?

[Battlion]

People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they choose (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or prosecution for doing so, unless... The people are required under their terms of employment, or in connection with charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;

You wish to allow governments to arrest or prosecute people for breaching their contract of employment?

The way I read that is it’s going to clamp down on individuals right to strike or walk out.

In fact the whole way I read this is a massive watering down of freedom of assembly, and that is deeply worrying to me.

Edit: Additionally, whilst BA says that article 5 doesn’t do what it says it does I entirely disagree on that too.

[Bears Armed]

People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they choose (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or prosecution for doing so, unless... The people are required under their terms of employment, or in connection with charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;

You wish to allow governments to arrest or prosecute people for breaching their contract of employment?

You think that people should be able to walk away from essential work, which they have contracted to do, because they want to go hold a party? That members of a nation's armed force should be able to walk away from front-line combat to attend a pop concert... maybe even one in a different country? Nations already can prosecute people for breaching their contract of employment, and can or allow non-governmental employers to do so, and I'm just leaving them with that right.

You wish to allow governments to arrest or prosecute people for breaching their contract of employment?

The way I read that is it’s going to clamp down on individuals right to strike or walk out.

Not my intention, as such, but I'll look into clarifying the matter. Something along the line of "lawful protests against employers', perhaps... although the current text is is already almost at the character limit.

Edit: Additionally, whilst BA says that article 5 doesn’t do what it says it does I entirely disagree on that too.

I'll see whether I can clarify that, too.

[Uan aa Boa]

You think that people should be able to walk away from essential work, which they have contracted to do, because they want to go hold a party? That members of a nation's armed force should be able to walk away from front-line combat to attend a pop concert... maybe even one in a different country? Nations already can prosecute people for breaching their contract of employment, and can or allow non-governmental employers to do so, and I'm just leaving them with that right.

I think that people who break their contract of employment can be subject to whatever mechanism for dealing with that the contract stipulates. For most contracts in most nations (granting that there might be some exceptions such as for military personnel) arrest and prosecution are not going to be that mechanism. As has been pointed out, as written this leaves scope for draconian restrictions on the right to strike and I'm not sure that the "lawful protest" clause you suggested helps. Protecting the right to strike is about giving workers protection against being fired. Being arrested should never have been an option on the table in the first place. It should not, in general, be possible for members of the general public to be arrested for not going to work. That doesn't sound controversial to me.

[Bears Armed]

“Hokay, some potential changes in response to these comments have been placed in to the current draft using for deleted bits and for additions.
“Article One would now specifically allow employers to sue for non-performance of contractual duties but would then limit the already-included bit about employment requirements to cover only serving military personnel.
“Article Five would now specifically clarify that this does not forbid the existence of single-party or theocratic governments.
“Some further tinkering with the wording may be needed to ensure that the revised text is still within the allowed maximum length.”

You think that people should be able to walk away from essential work, which they have contracted to do, because they want to go hold a party? That members of a nation's armed force should be able to walk away from front-line combat to attend a pop concert... maybe even one in a different country? Nations already can prosecute people for breaching their contract of employment, and can or allow non-governmental employers to do so, and I'm just leaving them with that right.

I think that people who break their contract of employment can be subject to whatever mechanism for dealing with that the contract stipulates. For most contracts in most nations (granting that there might be some exceptions such as for military personnel) arrest and prosecution are not going to be that mechanism. As has been pointed out, as written this leaves scope for draconian restrictions on the right to strike and I'm not sure that the "lawful protest" clause you suggested helps. Protecting the right to strike is about giving workers protection against being fired. Being arrested should never have been an option on the table in the first place. It should not, in general, be possible for members of the general public to be arrested for not going to work. That doesn't sound controversial to me.

"The main potential problem with “not arrest or prosecution” in that situation comes from the [almost certain] existence of some WA member nations which lack the distinction between ‘criminal law’ and ‘civil law’ which exists in — for example — the ‘RealWorld’ nations called ‘UK’ and ‘USA’. Anyhows, hwhat do you think of the changes that we are now suggesting?”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Pertinent to both sides of this labor discussion are the protections afforded by GAR #43 - which (among other things) establishes a WA-wide right both to form unions for collective bargaining and to strike as a tactic therein, subject to member states' conditions regarding emergency and medical workers specifically.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Pertinent to both sides of this labor discussion are the protections afforded by GAR #43 - which (among other things) establishes a WA-wide right both to form unions for collective bargaining and to strike as a tactic therein, subject to member states' conditions regarding emergency and medical workers specifically.

The current draft already says that it applies only subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force: The next draft, which I intend to post today, will also say explicitly that other GA resolutions can allow or even require further regulation in the case of assemblies or organisations that are for economic purposes.

EDIT: Second draft posted.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The C.D.S.P. opposes this based on clause 3. Our government sees great benefit in preventing religious organizations from engaging in invidious discrimination. Our opposition will lessen considerably if the next draft makes it clear that nations can identify which organizations are economic in nature based on it's own criteria."

[Bears Armed]

"The C.D.S.P. opposes this based on clause 3. Our government sees great benefit in preventing religious organizations from engaging in invidious discrimination. Our opposition will lessen considerably if the next draft makes it clear that nations can identify which organizations are economic in nature based on it's own criteria."

"Whereupon an oppressive regime or wannabee-oppressive regime could legally find excuses to label every organisation within its jurisdiction of which it disapproved -- such as environmentalist campaigns, disarmament campaigns, rearmament campaigns, or even rival political parties -- as 'economic' in nature and thus subject to government meddling with its organisation, membership policy, meeting schedules and locations, appointment of officials, and so on? Unacceptable. No.
"if you really believe it so important to give people a version of their religion which does not discriminate in ways that you dislike then set up such a religion yourselves -- as a 'Church of Separatist Peoples' or whatever -- and see how well it fares in free competition with the longer-established sect. You could even use the combination of your belief in the need for this and the 'compelling practical purpose' clause in GAR #35 to justify giving this new sect assistance that you don't give to the older organisation as well -- financial support, for example -- without falling foul of GAR #35 yourselves in the process."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


___________________________________________________________________________

OOC: There would actually be a fairly simple way for your government to enforce its anti-discrimination laws despite the unchanged version of that clause, anyway, but I'm leaving the details [other than the mere fact of its existence] for objectors to discover for themselves.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The C.D.S.P. opposes this based on clause 3. Our government sees great benefit in preventing religious organizations from engaging in invidious discrimination. Our opposition will lessen considerably if the next draft makes it clear that nations can identify which organizations are economic in nature based on it's own criteria."

"Whereupon an oppressive regime or wannabee-oppressive regime could legally find excuses to label every organisation within its jurisdiction of which it disapproved -- such as environmentalist campaigns, disarmament campaigns, rearmament campaigns, or even rival political parties -- as 'economic' in nature and thus subject to government meddling with its organisation, membership policy, meeting schedules and locations, appointment of officials, and so on? Unacceptable. No.
"if you really believe it so important to give people a version of their religion which does not discriminate in ways that you dislike then set up such a religion yourselves -- as a 'Church of Separatist Peoples' or whatever -- and see how well it fares in free competition with the longer-established sect. You could even use the combination of your belief in the need for this and the 'compelling practical purpose' clause in GAR #35 to justify giving this new sect assistance that you don't give to the older organisation as well -- financial support, for example -- without falling foul of GAR #35 yourselves in the process."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


___________________________________________________________________________

OOC: There would actually be a fairly simple way for your government to enforce its anti-discrimination laws despite the unchanged version of that clause, anyway, but I'm leaving the details [other than the mere fact of its existence] for objectors to discover for themselves.

"Then we expect to oppose this, and will work against it, since the C.D.S.P. sees no reason to consider churches as any different than theater companies."

[Bears Armed]

"Whereupon an oppressive regime or wannabee-oppressive regime could legally find excuses to label every organisation within its jurisdiction of which it disapproved -- such as environmentalist campaigns, disarmament campaigns, rearmament campaigns, or even rival political parties -- as 'economic' in nature and thus subject to government meddling with its organisation, membership policy, meeting schedules and locations, appointment of officials, and so on? Unacceptable. No.
"if you really believe it so important to give people a version of their religion which does not discriminate in ways that you dislike then set up such a religion yourselves -- as a 'Church of Separatist Peoples' or whatever -- and see how well it fares in free competition with the longer-established sect. You could even use the combination of your belief in the need for this and the 'compelling practical purpose' clause in GAR #35 to justify giving this new sect assistance that you don't give to the older organisation as well -- financial support, for example -- without falling foul of GAR #35 yourselves in the process."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


___________________________________________________________________________

OOC: There would actually be a fairly simple way for your government to enforce its anti-discrimination laws despite the unchanged version of that clause, anyway, but I'm leaving the details [other than the mere fact of its existence] for objectors to discover for themselves.

"Then we expect to oppose this, and will work against it, since the C.D.S.P. sees no reason to consider churches as any different than theater companies."

"So your government views freedom from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex as so much more important than the freedom of religious believers to practice their faiths in a 'theologically-correct' manner that the former must always trump the latter, even if the members of a religious congregation who want to open up priesthood in that way are far fewer than those who want to -- and quite probably would believe their spiritual welfare endangered if they did not -- continue to follow their traditional practices?
"To such an extent that you regard allowing people with differing views on such matters to found rival churches as too inferior to forcing your views on all churches to be allowable, even though the former policy wold allow a freedom of choice as well as a freedom of worship?
"in fact, wouldn't your policy create less freedom of employment than would exist under this proposed resolution? After all, if this passes then people who want want jobs in churches whose current versions' rules currently forbid them that employment would be free to join or even to organise rival churches with different policies instead, while people who want jobs in churches that still follow the original (possibly "goddess-given") rules would still have an opportunity to seek those positions as well, whereas you want governments to deny the latter group their opportunities..."
"And you present no reasoning for this, apparently just thinking that your views are so "obviously" superior that no explanation is necessary? Would you care to explain just why you consider infringing on people's freedoms and consciences in order to create a slight improvement in employment possibilities for what is quite likely to be a far smaller number of people -- maybe even to the extent of offending against sixty-four, or more, for every one whom you please -- is the right thing to do? After all, if the proportion of the people who actually want these changes is actually relatively high then setting up a rival church with looser rules should be quite easy... Do you actually have a reason for this policy beyond maybeso a biased view that"'Religion bad"? i realise that relatively few of your people seem to be religious, but are you actually incapable of understanding that this is not the case in all nations or are you simply presuming that all believers must be so stupid that their opinions "should" be ignored?"

"And maybeso you didn't think things through properly before making your comment that compared churches to theatre companies? Or is it actually the case in your nation that theatre companies are barred from considering candidates' sexes as a factor when deciding who gets which roles?" (OOC: and what about strip clubs, if your nation has those? Must they ignore applicants sexes when hiring strippers?)


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Marxist Germany]

"Then we expect to oppose this, and will work against it, since the C.D.S.P. sees no reason to consider churches as any different than theater companies."

"So your government views freedom from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex as so much more important than the freedom of religious believers to practice their faiths in a 'theologically-correct' manner that the former must always trump the latter, even if the members of a religious congregation who want to open up priesthood in that way are far fewer than those who want to -- and quite probably would believe their spiritual welfare endangered if they did not -- continue to follow their traditional practices?
"To such an extent that you regard allowing people with differing views on such matters to found rival churches as too inferior to forcing your views on all churches to be allowable, even though the former policy wold allow a freedom of choice as well as a freedom of worship?
"in fact, wouldn't your policy create less freedom of employment than would exist under this proposed resolution? After all, if this passes then people who want want jobs in churches whose current versions' rules currently forbid them that employment would be free to join or even to organise rival churches with different policies instead, while people who want jobs in churches that still follow the original (possibly "goddess-given") rules would still have an opportunity to seek those positions as well, whereas you want governments to deny the latter group their opportunities..."
"And you present no reasoning for this, apparently just thinking that your views are so "obviously" superior that no explanation is necessary? Would you care to explain just why you consider infringing on people's freedoms and consciences in order to create a slight improvement in employment possibilities for what is quite likely to be a far smaller number of people -- maybe even to the extent of offending against sixty-four, or more, for every one whom you please -- is the right thing to do? After all, if the proportion of the people who actually want these changes is actually relatively high then setting up a rival church with looser rules should be quite easy... Do you actually have a reason for this policy beyond maybeso a biased view that"'Religion bad"? i realise that relatively few of your people seem to be religious, but are you actually incapable of understanding that this is not the case in all nations or are you simply presuming that all believers must be so stupid that their opinions "should" be ignored?"

"And maybeso you didn't think things through properly before making your comment that compared churches to theatre companies? Or is it actually the case in your nation that theatre companies are barred from considering candidates' sexes as a factor when deciding who gets which roles?" (OOC: and what about strip clubs, if your nation has those? Must they ignore applicants sexes when hiring strippers?)


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"Thank you very much ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

"So your government views freedom from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex as so much more important than the freedom of religious believers to practice their faiths in a 'theologically-correct' manner that the former must always trump the latter, even if the members of a religious congregation who want to open up priesthood in that way are far fewer than those who want to -- and quite probably would believe their spiritual welfare endangered if they did not -- continue to follow their traditional practices?

"Spiritual welfare is a meaningless concept, since spirituality is just a pretty way of saying make-believe. So, yes. A certain amount of make-believe is valuable, but not at the expense of economic and social access. "

"To such an extent that you regard allowing people with differing views on such matters to found rival churches as too inferior to forcing your views on all churches to be allowable, even though the former policy wold allow a freedom of choice as well as a freedom of worship?

"If you have to go and start a rival organization to participate, you're putting a serious barrier in the way of participation among those with few means. Considering the low benefit of religious organizations in society, on the balance, that is the least harm when balancing them."

"in fact, wouldn't your policy create less freedom of employment than would exist under this proposed resolution? After all, if this passes then people who want want jobs in churches whose current versions' rules currently forbid them that employment would be free to join or even to organise rival churches with different policies instead, while people who want jobs in churches that still follow the original (possibly "goddess-given") rules would still have an opportunity to seek those positions as well, whereas you want governments to deny the latter group their opportunities..."

"It is not my, or the government's, responsibility to make sure everybody's superstitious needs are met, merely that access to public accommodations is met."

"And you present no reasoning for this, apparently just thinking that your views are so "obviously" superior that no explanation is necessary? Would you care to explain just why you consider infringing on people's freedoms and consciences in order to create a slight improvement in employment possibilities for what is quite likely to be a far smaller number of people -- maybe even to the extent of offending against sixty-four, or more, for every one whom you please -- is the right thing to do?

"Maximizing employment opportunity and social interaction is beneficial to pluralistic society. It reduces socially-imposed boundaries and ensures meritocratic access to society's resources. That is more beneficial than babying superstition."

After all, if the proportion of the people who actually want these changes is actually relatively high then setting up a rival church with looser rules should be quite easy... Do you actually have a reason for this policy beyond maybeso a biased view that"'Religion bad"? i realise that relatively few of your people seem to be religious, but are you actually incapable of understanding that this is not the case in all nations or are you simply presuming that all believers must be so stupid that their opinions "should" be ignored?"

"I'm not just presuming it, I am stating it outright."

"And maybeso you didn't think things through properly before making your comment that compared churches to theatre companies? Or is it actually the case in your nation that theatre companies are barred from considering candidates' sexes as a factor when deciding who gets which roles?" (OOC: and what about strip clubs, if your nation has those? Must they ignore applicants sexes when hiring strippers?)

"If a man fits the description, vocal range, and skill of a female part in a C.D.S.P. theater company, they are as eligible for consideration as any woman, and vice versa. We recently had a very successful all-woman run of Paint Your Wagon that made quite the stir." Bell clears his throat. "Are you suggesting that theater productions require a genital-check to adequately cast actors?

"Next I suppose you'll insinuate that strip clubs have little need for male dancers."

[Kenmoria]

“For similar reasons to the Separatist Peoples delegation, I am opposed to this piece of legislation. On another note, you have a random square bracket in article one clause e.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you're close to the mark limit, drop the "article"s and their underlining and just use numbers like normally.

That said, list code makes lists appear more professional.

Code: Select all

[u]Article One[/u]
People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they want (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or of law-suits (other than for non-performance of contractual duties) for doing so, unless
[list=a][*]The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people or damage to others’ property, or environmental damage in violation of WA legislation;
[*]The assembly is already causing or inciting such harm or damage;
[*]This would pose a significant threat of physical harm to attendees;                 
[*]This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at that site;
[*]The people are required  as part of current military service, or because of charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
[*]Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation that either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
[*]The event is a private one with invitations required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;[/list]

That will make it look like this:

Article One
People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they want (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or of law-suits (other than for non-performance of contractual duties) for doing so, unless

1. The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people or damage to others’ property, or environmental damage in violation of WA legislation;
2. The assembly is already causing or inciting such harm or damage;
3. This would pose a significant threat of physical harm to attendees;
4. This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at that site;
5. The people are required as part of current military service, or because of charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
6. Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation that either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
7. The event is a private one with invitations required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;

(You also had two subclause d's.)

Should be obvious that I oppose for the same reasons (discrimination enabling) as SP and others.

[Maowi]

“For similar reasons to the Separatist Peoples delegation, I am opposed to this piece of legislation. On another note, you have a random square bracket in article one clause e.”

'You can count me in on this, ambassador.'

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium must note its agreement with the CDSP," said Markhov, who had materialized just moments before, covered in a thin layer of mysterious dust, "Though, I am obligated to note that we do not necessarily support the language used."

[Bears Armed]

"So your government views freedom from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex as so much more important than the freedom of religious believers to practice their faiths in a 'theologically-correct' manner that the former must always trump the latter, even if the members of a religious congregation who want to open up priesthood in that way are far fewer than those who want to -- and quite probably would believe their spiritual welfare endangered if they did not -- continue to follow their traditional practices?

"Spiritual welfare is a meaningless concept, since spirituality is just a pretty way of saying make-believe. So, yes. A certain amount of make-believe is valuable, but not at the expense of economic and social access. "

"To such an extent that you regard allowing people with differing views on such matters to found rival churches as too inferior to forcing your views on all churches to be allowable, even though the former policy wold allow a freedom of choice as well as a freedom of worship?

"If you have to go and start a rival organization to participate, you're putting a serious barrier in the way of participation among those with few means. Considering the low benefit of religious organizations in society, on the balance, that is the least harm when balancing them."

"in fact, wouldn't your policy create less freedom of employment than would exist under this proposed resolution? After all, if this passes then people who want want jobs in churches whose current versions' rules currently forbid them that employment would be free to join or even to organise rival churches with different policies instead, while people who want jobs in churches that still follow the original (possibly "goddess-given") rules would still have an opportunity to seek those positions as well, whereas you want governments to deny the latter group their opportunities..."

"It is not my, or the government's, responsibility to make sure everybody's superstitious needs are met, merely that access to public accommodations is met."

"And you present no reasoning for this, apparently just thinking that your views are so "obviously" superior that no explanation is necessary? Would you care to explain just why you consider infringing on people's freedoms and consciences in order to create a slight improvement in employment possibilities for what is quite likely to be a far smaller number of people -- maybe even to the extent of offending against sixty-four, or more, for every one whom you please -- is the right thing to do?

"Maximizing employment opportunity and social interaction is beneficial to pluralistic society. It reduces socially-imposed boundaries and ensures meritocratic access to society's resources. That is more beneficial than babying superstition."

After all, if the proportion of the people who actually want these changes is actually relatively high then setting up a rival church with looser rules should be quite easy... Do you actually have a reason for this policy beyond maybeso a biased view that "'Religion bad"? I realise that relatively few of your people seem to be religious, but are you actually incapable of understanding that this is not the case in all nations or are you simply presuming that all believers must be so stupid that their opinions "should" be ignored?"

"I'm not just presuming it, I am stating it outright."

“So, not a reasoned argument about why any religion is incorrect, just a dogmatic assertion of your prejudiced view which you apparently expect people to take on faith as a matter of — to use a common idiom — ‘‘gospel truth’…”
(OOC: Please try to remember that, regardless of the situation in your own nation or even the probable situation in RL, there are nations in NationsStates that do have verifiable proof for the existence of various supernatural elements — possibly even extending to the existence of certain deities — in their role-played realities. Even though I myself OOC would probably be classed as either an atheist or an agnostic [depending on precisely how one defines those two terms], Bears Armed is one such nation — although the precise nature of some of those elements is open to debate — and they will need more than just dismissive statements from a few foreigners to “disprove” those facts…

(OOC: and what about strip clubs, if your nation has those? Must they ignore applicants sexes when hiring strippers?)[color=gray

]"Next I suppose you'll insinuate that strip clubs have little need for male dancers."

Some might, some might not, depending on not only the nature of their clientele but also on the composition of their[/i] current staff… just as would be the case concerning their potential need for female dancers: Would you deny them the opportunity to select on this basis when they actually [i]perceive[/]i a need for more dancers of one specific sex?[/color][/quote]

On another note, you have a random square bracket in article one clause e.

OOC: If you're close to the mark limit, drop the "article"s and their underlining and just use numbers like normally.

That said, list code makes lists appear more professional.
Code: Select all
Article One
People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they want (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or of law-suits (other than for non-performance of contractual duties) for doing so, unless

1. The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people or damage to others’ property, or environmental damage in violation of WA legislation;
2. The assembly is already causing or inciting such harm or damage;
3. This would pose a significant threat of physical harm to attendees;
4. This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at that site;
5. The people are required as part of current military service, or because of charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
6. Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation that either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
7. The event is a private one with invitations required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;

That will make it look like this:

Article One
People have the right to gather together voluntarily for whatever purposes they want (cultural, educational, political, religious, social, or otherwise), without risk of arrest or of law-suits (other than for non-performance of contractual duties) for doing so, unless
a. The assembly is to incite or cause direct physical harm to other people or damage to others’ property, or environmental damage in violation of WA legislation;
b. The assembly is already causing or inciting such harm or damage;
c. This would pose a significant threat of physical harm to attendees;
d. This would involve trespass on private property, or would interfere unreasonably with already-existing legal activities at that site;
e. The people are required as part of current military service, or because of charges for criminal offences, to be elsewhere or otherwise engaged at that time;
f. Attendance would breach a medical quarantine, or would require entry into a foreign nation that either forbids this itself or is currently off-limit for non-official travel by people of this nationality;
g. The event is a private one with invitations required, or is run by an organisation that limits attendance in some way;

(You also had two subclause d's.)

OOC: Noted. My thanks to both of you about these points. The second ‘subclause d’ was apparently because I changed the order of those two subclauses, and the computer automatically re-labelled all of those below the one that I cut out to post again below its successor but apparently didn’t relabel them again [i]after that re-posting… I've now fixed both hat detail and the surplus square bracket.

Should be obvious that I oppose for the same reasons (discrimination enabling) as SP and others.

[/quote]
OOC: This would potentially enable individual organisations to discriminate, yes, although only in the context of a wider resolution that considerably limits either compulsory membership or — especially as I’m going to drop the word “ideological” from Article Five — legal monopolisation of a field of activity so that any people who feel discriminated against by one group should be able to find (or even to form) a rival one whose policies are more to their taste.
On the other hand, removing that clause (as some people here want) would leave organisations open to governments enforcing any discriminatory policies that they could justify as having “compelling practical purposes” on ALL organisations within their jurisdictions, which would be much harder for people to escape… and neither I on an OOC basis nor the Bears IC would be happy about not just ”discrimination enabling” but also “tyranny-enabling” in that way.
To use one example, what if a nation’s government believes in a religion that considers people of some particular type (e.g. redheads) to be “accursed by the Goddess” and — possibly even with some proof of their deity’s existence locally (even though they obviously can’t make that canon right across all of NS) — decrees that there is therefore a ‘compelling practical purpose’ for excluding people of that type from membership in all organisations within that nation? Impossible under the current draft with its ‘Article Three’, but possible under a version of this proposed resolution from which that Article has been removed...

[Araraukar]

(OOC: Please try to remember that, regardless of the situation in your own nation or even the probable situation in RL, there are nations in NationsStates that do have verifiable proof for the existence of various supernatural elements — possibly even extending to the existence of certain deities — in their role-played realities. Even though I myself OOC would probably be classed as either an atheist or an agnostic [depending on precisely how one defines those two terms], Bears Armed is one such nation — although the precise nature of some of those elements is open to debate — and they will need more than just dismissive statements from a few foreigners to “disprove” those facts…
*snip*
On the other hand, removing that clause (as some people here want) would leave organisations open to governments enforcing any discriminatory policies that they could justify as having “compelling practical purposes” on ALL organisations within their jurisdictions, which would be much harder for people to escape… and neither I on an OOC basis nor the Bears IC would be happy about not just ”discrimination enabling” but also “tyranny-enabling” in that way.
To use one example, what if a nation’s government believes in a religion that considers people of some particular type (e.g. redheads) to be “accursed by the Goddess” and — possibly even with some proof of their deity’s existence locally (even though they obviously can’t make that canon right across all of NS) — decrees that there is therefore a ‘compelling practical purpose’ for excluding people of that type from membership in all organisations within that nation? Impossible under the current draft with its ‘Article Three’, but possible under a version of this proposed resolution from which that Article has been removed...

OOC: You seem to be arguing against yourself. On one hand claiming that your RP reality must be honored, on the other ridiculing just such RP (actual deities actually saying stuff) as a compelling reason. Which do you want it to be?

[Kenmoria]

“Article six seems strangely precise about matters, particularly the two-thirds section. It is currently unclear whether you wish to say that those who are 66% the legal age must have the ability to decide religious or political matters, or whether you are allowing this to happen. In addition, particularly with religious matters, I think anyone who doesn’t believe in a god shouldn’t be forced to attend church by their parents, no matter the age.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“So, not a reasoned argument about why any religion is incorrect, just a dogmatic assertion of your prejudiced view which you apparently expect people to take on faith as a matter of — to use a common idiom — ‘‘gospel truth’…”

"I've little need to argue about the existence or lack of existence of fairy tales, ambassador. People have the right, misguided though it may be, to believe in whatever they wish. That does not mean that governments need to allow this belief to interfere with employment policy. There are good reasons to stand in the way of equal opportunity, such as ensuring that employees at battered women's shelters are themselves women. In such a case, discrimination prevents a greater harm and is not invidious. Permitting religious organization to discriminate avoids no such greater harm."

Some might, some might not, depending on not only the nature of their clientele but also on the composition of their[/i] current [i]staff… just as would be the case concerning their potential need for female dancers: Would you deny them the opportunity to select on this basis when they actually [i]perceive[/]i a need for more dancers of one specific sex?

"If there is evidence that such a club is deliberately and systematically excluding a particular gender from gainful employment based on a protected classification without a compelling, practical purpose, then they violate C.D.S.P. law, and face sanctions or possibly even revocation of their business license."