[Passed] Right to Assemble [GAR 27 replacement]

[Maowi]

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Encouraged by extant resolutions to prevent such quashing of protests, including WA#43 "WA Labor Relations Act", guaranteeing workers' rights to form labour unions and engage in strikes, and WA#436 "Protecting Free Expression",

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the most proportionate way of responding to harmful activities as defined in clause 3.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.
   
   
3. Harmful activities, for the purposes of this resolution, are defined as one or more of the following:
   
   
   1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals under uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;
      
      
   2. unlawful action; and
      
      
   3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
4. It shall not be unlawful to:
   
   
   1. plan, assist, or participate in a non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, or
      
      
   2. carry out actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
5. 1. Notwithstanding the above, member states may act to prevent or curtail the advocacy, in non-violent assemblies and associations, of actions or inaction that would constitute:
      
      
      1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or
         
         
      2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.
   2. Should they refrain from taking action as per clause 5.a. of this resolution, member states must take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of individuals targeted by such advocacy.

Co-authored by Wymondham

OOC: This is intended as a replacement to this repeal of GAR 27, should it pass. Very grateful for any feedback!

Drafts:

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:
   
   
   1. the obstruction of emergency services from being delivered;
      
      
   2. the unauthorised use of private property;
      
      
   3. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;
      
      
   4. the existence of a material threat to private or state property.
4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly for the purpose of advocating violence or hatred towards an individual or group of individuals.

Co-authored by Wymondham

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:
   
   
   1. the obstruction of vehicular traffic or the delivery of emergency services;
      
      
   2. the prevention of normal governance of the member state;
      
      
   3. the unauthorised use of private property;
      
      
   4. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;
      
      
   5. the existence of a material threat to private or state property.
4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:
   
   
   1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or
      
      
   2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Co-authored by Wymondham

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:
   
   
   1. the obstruction of vehicular traffic or the delivery of emergency services;
      
      
   2. the prevention of normal governance of the member state;
      
      
   3. the unauthorised use of private property;
      
      
   4. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;
      
      
   5. the existence of a material threat to private or state property;
      
      
   6. a violation of extant international legislation.
4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:
   
   
   1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or
      
      
   2. the physical, verbal, sexual, or emotional abuse of an individual or group of individuals.

Co-authored by Wymondham

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
3. Member states or private entities may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing one or more of the following:
   
   
   1. unlawful action;
      
      
   2. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
4. The act of planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition must not be considered unlawful for the purposes of clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
5. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:
   
   
   1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals,
      
      
   2. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or
      
      
   3. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
3. Member states or private entities may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing one or more of the following:
   
   
   1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals - member states are required to create uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;
      
      
   2. unlawful action; and
      
      
   3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
4. The act of planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition must not be considered unlawful.
   
   
5. Member states may not designate as unlawful actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
   
   
6. Notwithstanding the above, member states must deny the rights granted to individuals by this resolution in cases where individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction:
   
   
   1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or
      
      
   2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clauses 3 and 4 of this resolution.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clauses 3 and 4 of this resolution.
   
   
3. Subject to prior, extant World Assembly law, member states or private entities may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing one or more of the following:
   
   
   1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals under uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;
      
      
   2. unlawful action; and
      
      
   3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
4. It shall not be unlawful to:
   
   
   1. plan, assist, or participate in a non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, or
      
      
   2. carry out actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
5. Notwithstanding the above, member states must forbid non-violent assemblies and associations that have the purpose of advocating for actions or inaction that would constitute:
   
   
   1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or
      
      
   2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong

The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the most proportionate way of responding to harmful activities as defined in clause 3.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.
   
   
3. Harmful activities, for the purposes of this resolution, are defined as one or more of the following:
   
   
   1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals under uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;
      
      
   2. unlawful action; and
      
      
   3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
4. It shall not be unlawful to:
   
   
   1. plan, assist, or participate in a non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, or
      
      
   2. carry out actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
5. Notwithstanding the above, member states must forbid non-violent assemblies and associations that have the purpose of advocating for actions or inaction that would constitute:
   
   
   1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or
      
      
   2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham

[Cretox State]

Glad to see this. Just so I'm clear:

1. This proposal would prevent undue government or private interference in the planning or holding of nonviolent assembly.
2. This proposal would prevent undue government (not private) retaliation against people for planning, assisting, or participating in nonviolent assembly.
3. Governments (not private entities) may bend the above two mandates under the conditions of clause 3 (or may choose to continue abiding by said mandates).
4. This proposal's protections must not be granted under the conditions of clause 4 (a government cannot allow a hate march, for example, even if they'd like to).
5. This proposal does not legislate on violent assembly in any way.

Is this an accurate interpretation?

Also, would clause 4, specifically "for the purpose of advocating violence or hatred towards an individual or group of individuals," effectively force members to ban anti-establishment protests, such as Occupy Wall Street?

[Bananaistan]

"Belief seems incredibly weak compared to "any goal, cause, or view" and assembly is weak compared to "peacefully assemble, associate, and protest". Freedom of association is the more important part of the resolution you wish to replace with this.

"Why only private property in 3b? One should not be entitled to hold a protest on the runway at the airport, the overtaking lane on the M3 at rush hour, or inside the spaceship hanger at Area 51.

"I would suspect that most reasonable governments would not permit protestors to rock up to, demand entry and be granted it to protest on the floor of parliament. Or to block the route of a foreign leader during a controversial state visit. Reasonable security should be allowed for.

"It will be interesting to see what sort of document will remain by the time everyone's reasonable exceptions are accounted for. I suspect it won't provide much protection for freedom of assembly at all."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We think the Bananamen's remarks ought to be well taken.

[Maowi]

Glad to see this. Just so I'm clear:

1. This proposal would prevent undue government or private interference in the planning or holding of nonviolent assembly.
2. This proposal would prevent undue government (not private) retaliation against people for planning, assisting, or participating in nonviolent assembly.
3. Governments (not private entities) may bend the above two mandates under the conditions of clause 3 (or may choose to continue abiding by said mandates).
4. This proposal's protections must not be granted under the conditions of clause 4 (a government cannot allow a hate march, for example, even if they'd like to).
5. This proposal does not legislate on violent assembly in any way.

Is this an accurate interpretation?

OOC: This is an accurate summary (my reasoning for excluding private entities from your second point was not wanting to get into labour rights and strikes etc., as that would be better suited in a separate resolution).

Also, would clause 4, specifically "for the purpose of advocating violence or hatred towards an individual or group of individuals," effectively force members to ban anti-establishment protests, such as Occupy Wall Street?

I do see the point you're making and have modified clause 4 to hopefully match the intention a little better.

"Belief seems incredibly weak compared to "any goal, cause, or view" and assembly is weak compared to "peacefully assemble, associate, and protest". Freedom of association is the more important part of the resolution you wish to replace with this.

"This is a good point, thank you - we have updated the language in our draft to include ambition alongside belief and association alongside assembly. I believe that the current phrasing ("for the purpose of articulating or advocating ...") covers the protest aspect of what you mention.

"Why only private property in 3b? One should not be entitled to hold a protest on the runway at the airport, the overtaking lane on the M3 at rush hour, or inside the spaceship hanger at Area 51.

"I would suspect that most reasonable governments would not permit protestors to rock up to, demand entry and be granted it to protest on the floor of parliament. Or to block the route of a foreign leader during a controversial state visit. Reasonable security should be allowed for.

"We have modified 3.a. and added a new 3.b. which the hope of addressing these concerns to a reasonable extent."

OOC: I am not fully sure yet about 3.a. and 3.b. ^ so would definitely appreciate further feedback on those. I've also made some modifications in response to the comments on the repeal thread, e.g. the action vs inaction issue.

[Honeydewistania]

"Who gets to decide what is least restrictive?"

[Maowi]

"Who gets to decide what is least restrictive?"

"I do not believe there is much scope for subjectivity in this issue. The "least restrictive way of resolving [a] situation" is that which eliminates the problem caused by that situation with the least possible impact on other simultaneously ongoing activities. For example, if there are protesters obstructing vehicular traffic, the least restrictive way of resolving that situation would be to take steps to move them out of the way, rather than immediately arresting the protesters and preventing the protest from continuing."

[Boston Castle]

OOC: With the exception of capitalizing the sub clauses of point 3 (I just prefer it this way, I know others don’t) and point 4, I have no qualms with this.

Avi Rosenborg: “Well done once again, Ambassador. This replacement has my full support as does your colleague from Wymondham’s repeal effort.”

[Maowi]

OOC: With the exception of capitalizing the sub clauses of point 3 (I just prefer it this way, I know others don’t) and point 4, I have no qualms with this.

OOC: And unfortunately I am one of those other people thanks for giving it a look-over though.

Avi Rosenborg: “Well done once again, Ambassador. This replacement has my full support as does your colleague from Wymondham’s repeal effort.”

"Thank you very much for your support, ambassador."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: With the exception of capitalizing the sub clauses of point 3 (I just prefer it this way, I know others don’t) and point 4, I have no qualms with this.

Sub-lists should not be capitalised unless they are a new sentence.

[Liberimery]

So a religion that wishes to protest a war soldier’s funeral as they do not agree with a government policy, the protest cannot be counter protested by an organization that believes that a funeral is not a venue for a protest and attempts to drown them out by there counter protest noise?

What about an immigrant group having a rally supporting their nation of origin. Can it be counter protested by a second immigrant group that was the victim of a genocide supported by the first immigrant group’s home nation that they are celebrating? Especially if the date of the initial assembly falls on the anniversary of an important incident in the events of the genocide?

And what of a minority group protesting against a majority group because they feel that their rights are not respected because of their skin color?

Nobody protests in support of ideas everyone agrees with, but to bring awareness to problems in society. The minority may have some unpleasant words to say about a majority. But you’re call for a ban on a nebulous incitement to hate is silence to many legitimate issues to a government that chooses to turn a deaf ear to these issues. All they have to do is claim it is hate.

[Maowi]

So a religion that wishes to protest a war soldier’s funeral as they do not agree with a government policy, the protest cannot be counter protested by an organization that believes that a funeral is not a venue for a protest and attempts to drown them out by there counter protest noise?

What about an immigrant group having a rally supporting their nation of origin. Can it be counter protested by a second immigrant group that was the victim of a genocide supported by the first immigrant group’s home nation that they are celebrating? Especially if the date of the initial assembly falls on the anniversary of an important incident in the events of the genocide?

And what of a minority group protesting against a majority group because they feel that their rights are not respected because of their skin color?

Nobody protests in support of ideas everyone agrees with, but to bring awareness to problems in society. The minority may have some unpleasant words to say about a majority. But you’re call for a ban on a nebulous incitement to hate is silence to many legitimate issues to a government that chooses to turn a deaf ear to these issues. All they have to do is claim it is hate.

"This is a good point and I have taken it - I have tried to strengthen clause 4."

OOC Edit: also added clause 3.f.

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: The Tinhamptonian delegation is opposed both to this proposal and the repeal that would facilitate it. We do not believe that requiring member states to forbid assemblies which advocate for the "emotional abuse of an individual or group of individuals" - especially when it is unclear who ought to be doing the moral outcry and when such restrictions are rightfully not imposed on other forms of expression - would be of utility on an international scale. Since we cannot vote for portions of resolutions, only whole proposals, we must oppose this as a whole.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"We agree with Ambassador Smith. Clause 4 is a complete non-starter for us. The standard is entirely too subjective and subject to abuse. One could conceivably declare, under this resolution, that the comitia plebis is illegal, since the abuse of opposing politicians is a roughly daily occurrence, nevermind the constant inveighing against Communists and the GA delegates, and undesirables of society. We are fairly certain the same could be said (with substitutions) of just about any political or religious association present within the Republic. For that matter, our own honored self regularly engages in speech about the so-called Ambassadors of Tinfect and the Bananamen "Republic" that the very meeting of this clown sho...assembly violates clause 4."

[Tinfect]

[Irrelevancy Removed]

1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.
   
   
3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:
   
   1. the obstruction of vehicular traffic or the delivery of emergency services;
   2. the prevention of normal governance of the member state;
   3. the unauthorised use of private property;
   4. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;
   5. the existence of a material threat to private or state property;
   6. a violation of extant international legislation.
4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:
   
   1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or
   2. the physical, verbal, sexual, or emotional abuse of an individual or group of individuals.

"To begin," said Feren, "The terms established in Clause Three are wildly insufficient; they account only for vehicle traffic, which, as the Imperium prefers to keep our streets viable for pedestrians, allows whatever dissident mob to blockade portions of the city simply on the basis that the Imperium chooses to develop its cities in a sensible manner. Of course it is good that the draft continues to allow the Imperium to prevent said mobs from having themselves killed via the challenging of public transit, but that alone is insufficient. Further, it fails to account for the 'non-violent' advocacy of illegal activity; the Imperium sees little reason to allow the gathering of an association of individuals seeking to betray information security to those with whom we are at war, or other such acts which do not constitute immediate violence. One would hope that the flaw in such is obvious.

However, unlike certain delegations to whom the concepts of civility and competence are apparently unheard of, the Imperium has no concerns with Clause 4. Indeed, we find its aggressive opposition towards the abhorrent groups implied in Four-Bee to be quite refreshing."

[Maowi]

"We have taken note of some of the objections given towards clause four and removed the offending portion - upon reflection it is true that it was too subjective and ambiguous a standard.

"It has become clear that our previous approach of constructing an ever-growing list of exceptions in clause 3 was untenable and likely made for weaker legislation than desired. We have therefore tried restructuring the proposal; hopefully this is an improvement? There are likely further issues to address in the draft in its current form but hopefully this structure lends itself better than the previous one."

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump - would still really appreciate feedback as to whether this way of structuring it works.

[Potted Plants United]

Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:

1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or
   
   
2. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals.

OOC: Why are you wanting to allow hatespeech-spewing gatherings? Don't you know how emotional violence (often called verbal bullying to make it appear somehow less damaging to the target(s)) can cripple someone's functional abilities just as badly as physical violence?

[Maowi]

OOC: Why are you wanting to allow hatespeech-spewing gatherings? Don't you know how emotional violence (often called verbal bullying to make it appear somehow less damaging to the target(s)) can cripple someone's functional abilities just as badly as physical violence?

OOC: We did previously have the language "verbal or emotional" abuse included in 5.b., but that's too easy to twist and take advantage of so we got rid of it.

What would you think of language to outlaw "hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity"? While "hatred" is slightly loose as a term, the qualifier about motivation might stop it overreaching.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Why are you wanting to allow hatespeech-spewing gatherings? Don't you know how emotional violence (often called verbal bullying to make it appear somehow less damaging to the target(s)) can cripple someone's functional abilities just as badly as physical violence?

OOC: We did previously have the language "verbal or emotional" abuse included in 5.b., but that's too easy to twist and take advantage of so we got rid of it.

What would you think of language to outlaw "hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity"? While "hatred" is slightly loose as a term, the qualifier about motivation might stop it overreaching.

(OOC: I recommend adding ‘or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation’, or similar wording, to that clause, to cover any other discriminated groups.)

[Araraukar]

What would you think of language to outlaw "hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity"? While "hatred" is slightly loose as a term, the qualifier about motivation might stop it overreaching.

(OOC: I recommend adding ‘or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation’, or similar wording, to that clause, to cover any other discriminated groups.)

OOC: With Kenmoria's addition, would agree.

[WayNeacTia]

Seems like a make work project if you ask me. #27 already does the job. Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel here?

[Maowi]

OOC: I have put that language into the draft, thank you for the suggestions :D.

Seems like a make work project if you ask me. #27 already does the job. Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel here?

Unfortunately, GA#27 does not do the job very well for quite a lot of reasons, many of which are listed here.

[Maowi]

OOC: Bumping this - does anyone have thoughts on whether clauses 3 and 4 work effectively?

[Maowi]

OOC: Updated with a new draft based off a conversation that took place in the WA discord. We have slightly modified the language in clause 2 by changing "exceptional action" simply to "action" and instead adding what is now clause 5. We have also put 3.a. in place, which used to be under the "notwithstanding" clause in a slightly different form.