[PASSED] Repeal GA#27: Freedom of Assembly

[Wymondham]

OOC: I have marked this Illegal in the queue for an Honest Mistake: the clause beginning "Disappointed..." asserts that assemblies which result in the occupation of legislative assemblies are protected under the target resolution. The target clearly states that "individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble" (emphasis added) - non-peaceful assemblies are not protected here and I don't see how anyone could argue that such occupations are "peaceful."

I apologize for not catching this prior to submission; the last time I looked at this thread I don't recall seeing it, but that was a while back.

To confirm, the issue is only with the Disappointed clause not the Appalled one as well?

[Wymondham]

I've pulled this and as soon its confirmed as to whether its just the disappointed clause or if its the appalled clause as well, I will resubmit minus the offending clause(s)

[Greater Cesnica]

I've pulled this and as soon its confirmed as to whether its just the disappointed clause or if its the appalled clause as well, I will resubmit minus the offending clause/s

Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

[Wymondham]

I've pulled this and as soon its confirmed as to whether its just the disappointed clause or if its the appalled clause as well, I will resubmit minus the offending clause/s

Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both

[Greater Cesnica]

Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both

Ah, that's fair.

[Wymondham]

As a note, the /s in "clause/s" from my post about temporarily pulling this was meant to be used in the same way as (s). I've edited to clarify, I was very muchnoy trying to be sarcastic or subtweet anyone

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Obligatory /NotGenSec, but assuming that the illegalities concerned both clauses, wouldn't it be safe to remove both?

Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both

OOC: Yes, the first mark classified both clauses as honest mistakes. On reflection, though, I believe the "appalled" clause - though undeniably weasel-worded and as a player I dislike it - fits in the "colorable interpretation" standard. Reasonable people - if few - could interpret the target that way, so it's fine to leave it in IMO.

[Bananaistan]

Well that's the thing Sierra Lyricalia submitted 2 illegal declarations - one stated it was just the disappointed clause, the other said it was both the disappointed and the appalled clause. Bananaistan's illegal declaration stated the issue was with the Disappointed clause and made no referenence to the Appalled clause at all. Hence why I am querying if it was one or both

OOC: Yes, the first mark classified both clauses as honest mistakes. On reflection, though, I believe the "appalled" clause - though undeniably weasel-worded and as a player I dislike it - fits in the "colorable interpretation" standard. Reasonable people - if few - could interpret the target that way, so it's fine to leave it in IMO.

OOC: Also apologies to the author for not catching this earlier. I agree that the "innocent people" clause is not an honest mistake and the disappointed clause is.

[Wymondham]

OOC: Yes, the first mark classified both clauses as honest mistakes. On reflection, though, I believe the "appalled" clause - though undeniably weasel-worded and as a player I dislike it - fits in the "colorable interpretation" standard. Reasonable people - if few - could interpret the target that way, so it's fine to leave it in IMO.

OOC: Also apologies to the author for not catching this earlier. I agree that the "innocent people" clause is not an honest mistake and the disappointed clause is.

OOC: Just to be 100% sure, you're saying that the Disappointed clause is ilegal, but the innocent people/apalled clause is legal?
Edit: As long as my assumption above is true, I'm going to yoink the disappointed clause and resubmit tommorrow

[Wymondham]

I have resubmitted this here

[Jedinsto]

One approval away from quorum

[Goobergunchia]

For the information of all Members, this Proposal has reached quorum and is now in the queue to be voted on. Question to be put in 1 day 20 hours.

[Feyrisshire]

This repeal could only be a good thing. I'd say that GA#27 also had a number of flaws as well not covered in this repeal but I am happy for all the reasons for repeal given. I hope that the repeal prepared would be much better than the current resolution.

[Neymarland]

I am appalled that this flawed resolution was in place for so long. Thank you for standing up to it. I have a feeling you are going to replace it.

[Kadikalacistan]

Couldn't he just amend GA#27 to make it stronger and more clear? I believe the general idea is good, but I can agree that some clauses are vague and unclear.

[Tinhampton]

Couldn't he just amend GA#27...

Resolutions cannot be amended.

Still opposed, if I haven't said that here already

[Westinor]

The North Pacific will be voting Against the at-vote GA proposal, and our delegate has lodged a vote accordingly. Further information on our stance can be found in our IFV here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1499508

[Texkentuck]

Believing that more detailed and comprehensive legislation is required to address the issues raised in this resolution is the reasoning why on behalf of the Texkentuck Federation will vote for the repeal to have a more sound proposal for Freedom of Assembly.

[Neymarland]

The North Pacific will be voting Against the at-vote GA proposal, and our delegate has lodged a vote accordingly. Further information on our stance can be found in our IFV here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1499508

Wow, cool. What about the other Pacifics?

[Riviere Renard]

Extremely against

I'm usually rather apathetic about new resolutions, but this one offended me. I've read both resolutions several times, and while flaws certainly exist, I don't think they're nearly bad enough for a repeal, nor are any of the problems stated in the resolution as problematic as perceived.

Regretting the many loopholes that the resolution presents which could allow despotic governments to clamp down on free assembly, such as the lack of a definition or qualifier for “harm” in clause 3, potentially obligating governments to forbid protests or demonstrations based on minor, technical and irrelevant harms, such as increased taxes on the most wealthy in society...

While certainly the loose definition of harm is problematic, the resolution in question merely allows the government to 'put down', as it could be exaggerated as, the protest, never obligated. Furthermore, if a nation were to do such an action with a clearly inappropriate definition of harm, one could expect it to cause backlash from the WA, if only hindered from resulting legal dispute. While certainly a problem to be solved, a repeal is not an appropriate solution. After all, is there no supreme court for the WA?

Concerned, however, that Clause 1 allows denizens to abuse the rights granted by it to evade incarceration, punishment, or other repercussions for their crimes - a significant hindrance to the execution of justice, by extending the right to assemble to “all individuals” regardless of their criminal status...

I don't believe this to be true, based on the resolution in question. Criminals are most certainly allowed to protest, but that won't allow them to avoid punishments for their crimes. Even if the crimes are related to the protests, there is no such clause that prevents arrest so long as the arrest is unrelated to protesting at all. And, most crimes, I think, can be reasonably interpreted as violating the 'peaceful' clause of the resolution. Criminals who have served their time have the right to protest, and criminals who will so be arrested have the right to protest. The resolution doesn't say that a criminal who is amongst the protestors cannot be arrested, merely that a peaceful assembly cannot be put down.

Worried that clause 2 of the resolution does not prevent protests which cause harm to members of the public, for example protests organised on a public highway, those which would block the route of emergency vehicles, or protests that take place in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, as clause 2 states governments may only restrict the freedom of assembly when “individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing”...

Clause 2 of resolution 27 states "No Government... may take any action to infringe upon [the rights from clause 1]; unless... circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.", therefore concerns over "protests that take place in dangerous or unhealthy conditions" are misplaced. The resolution also prevents "protest which cause harm to members of the public" by clarifying in clause 1 that these rights only extend to peaceful protests.

Saddened that, while it bars those who call for violence via direct action from its protections, the resolution shields those who do so via calls for deliberate inaction, such as by urging law enforcement officers to refrain from protecting individuals of a certain racial group...

This is a serous concern, but one that is better solved by another resolution, then by removing this one. Although I'd hesitate to say this is a bad as implied. It does not allow police to listen to protestors in that regard, and police intervention because of race is prohibited by other resolutions. I don't believe a protest as boldly racist as this hypothetical should exist, but this case can, and should, be handled by a further resolution rather than by repealing this one.

Appalled that clause 3 does not extend its prohibition to demonstrations that call for violence against the imprisoned, accused or convicted, only applying its protections to the nebulously defined group of “innocent people”...

The resolution in question is the most vague resolution I've read. However, I do not believe that it allows, by any reasonable interpretation, a call for violence against the imprisoned, as, in this circumstance, they are innocent to the protestors. However, much like most of the resolution, it needs clarification.

Believing that more detailed and comprehensive legislation is required to address the issues raised in this resolution...

Most certainly an additional resolution is vital, but removing the original piece is a mistake. Merely a resolution that extends protection in certain cases is needed. It is unreasonable to say resolution 27 explicitly allows abuse of powers by protestors, so we need not repeal it.

I have seen resolutions repealed with calls to replace it, but no replacement resolution comes to vote, or it gets voted against, which is highly concerning to me. This is one of our most fundamental freedoms of democratic and undemocratic nations alike. If this is repealed I hope deeply that a true an active movement does come forth the make a better one.

Because of how important the original was, in order to support this repeal I must see a draft of a replacement by someone. While I don't want it to be repealed at all, I recognize the opportunity opened up by allowing the creation of a better, more up to date one.

[Brightharpia]

Couldn't he just amend GA#27 to make it stronger and more clear? I believe the general idea is good, but I can agree that some clauses are vague and unclear.

Kadikalacistan, I agree. If there are issues with GA#27, it seems more appropriate to amend it as opposed to a repeal. If there was a strong proposal for Freedom of Assembly speech immediately right after this repeal my vote might be for yes, but Brightharpia is currently against.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Couldn't he just amend GA#27 to make it stronger and more clear? I believe the general idea is good, but I can agree that some clauses are vague and unclear.

Kadikalacistan, I agree. If there are issues with GA#27, it seems more appropriate to amend it as opposed to a repeal. If there was a strong proposal for Freedom of Assembly speech immediately right after this repeal my vote might be for yes, but Brightharpia is currently against.

Amendments are not supported by the game. viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

[Neymarland]

Kadikalacistan, I agree. If there are issues with GA#27, it seems more appropriate to amend it as opposed to a repeal. If there was a strong proposal for Freedom of Assembly speech immediately right after this repeal my vote might be for yes, but Brightharpia is currently against.

Amendments are not supported by the game. viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

It annoys me that so many members don't know about that.

[United States of Americanas]

Hmm, so this is a repeal for a looooooong standing law that works fine and the repeal / replace according to my advisors contains some of the flaws as the original. Uhh yeah no thanks. I’ll be filing a big fat nope vote.

[Texkentuck]

Want to address that the repeal of this proposal is good and the next one drawn up will be better. That is if there is one. The questions we need to ask ourselves is why are the laws put in place. Laws are put in place because something is an issue. This horrendous law kept in place will make it in which no one can keep law and order. In the next bill their must be a distinction between what is considered protesting by this assembly and what is considered total rebellion. I vote for this to be replaced for that distinction.

My nation would like to thank the WA for doing it's best to make our nations better. We need to have a proposal sometime in the future that will benefit a nations economy. One in which the gap between rich and poor is closed more but the rich in our nations aren't affected to the point of pure protests and rebellion. We support the repeal and on behalf of the royal family in the bill for better quality to nations with a huge wealth gap we offer up to 1.2 million TextMarks for the purpose of redistributed stimulus to be entered into closing the wealth gap. This cash comes from Texkentuck's oil and soda sails industry. In such a bill please add Texkentuck and all nations do the same. Nations who can not do this will not be affected by this what so ever and that should be added. Make a proposal only for wealthy nations.
Deo Gratias et Maria

Forever a still a capitalist nation in accord to closing the gap by just a bit for better living standards. It's my nations moral duty as long as we don't become full on socialist.

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Federation