[PASSED] Repeal GA#27: Freedom of Assembly

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends voting for this repeal. During internal voting, 9 member regions supported the resolution, 2 opposed, and 2 abstained. For more detailed reasoning, including statements by URA citizens on this resolution, see the dispatch below.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1500263

[San Guglielmo]

Is it a WA requirement that a policy must be repealed before a new one can be proposed? If that is the case, in the interim member states' citizens would seem to be without what measurable guarantees a policy might have afforded them. Ideally, a repeal could include an alternative proposal.

[Texkentuck]

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.

Of course your nation is against this proposal to replace. Your nation doesn't have the right to bear arms so by not having such a stance on freedom to assemble your nation may uprise in an all out protest but of course your government has total control. Our government has a lot of power but for my nation would like for the world Assembly to pass a law for the difference between rebellion and protest. Above all we want a proposal in the future for all wealthy nations to have a legislative amount of money only for wealthy nation to come together to close the wealth gap. In the long run the money which goes to workers in our nation will use the money to put forth ingenuity. Nations who can't put fourth such funds their won't be apart of the bill because their wealth gap is closed because they are all broke. Your nation is wealthy so in the future hope your nation will support such a proposal. This proposal to my nation doesn't hold as much important because are political freedoms are insane.

[Wymondham]

Is it a WA requirement that a policy must be repealed before a new one can be proposed? If that is the case, in the interim member states' citizens would seem to be without what measurable guarantees a policy might have afforded them. Ideally, a repeal could include an alternative proposal.

WA resolutions cannot be amended nor can repeals introduced an alternative, they must be done seperately.

[Texkentuck]

Is it a WA requirement that a policy must be repealed before a new one can be proposed? If that is the case, in the interim member states' citizens would seem to be without what measurable guarantees a policy might have afforded them. Ideally, a repeal could include an alternative proposal.

WA resolutions cannot be amended nor can repeals introduced an alternative, they must be done seperately.

Thank you sir for clearing that up.

A government official sitting with my leader walks over and hands you a box of Gurkha cigars. Enjoy.....

[San Guglielmo]

WA resolutions cannot be amended nor can repeals introduced an alternative, they must be done seperately.

Thank you for answering the question.

[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.

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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Of course your nation is against this proposal to replace. Your nation doesn't have the right to bear arms so by not having such a stance on freedom to assemble your nation may uprise in an all out protest but of course your government has total control. Our government has a lot of power but for my nation would like for the world Assembly to pass a law for the difference between rebellion and protest. Above all we want a proposal in the future for all wealthy nations to have a legislative amount of money only for wealthy nation to come together to close the wealth gap. In the long run the money which goes to workers in our nation will use the money to put forth ingenuity. Nations who can't put fourth such funds their won't be apart of the bill because their wealth gap is closed because they are all broke. Your nation is wealthy so in the future hope your nation will support such a proposal. This proposal to my nation doesn't hold as much important because are political freedoms are insane.

"but of course your government has total control" - Just because our populace doesn't have legal guns doesn't mean we can't have a revolution. Of course we wont, because we are in the top 18% for political freedom, and top 12% for civil rights. We are a direct democracy.

"pass a law for the difference between rebellion and protest" - a rebellion is not peaceful. Resolution 27, the one that is being repealed, allows the use of force against protests that are not peaceful.

"This proposal to my nation doesn't hold as much important because are political freedoms are insane" - our nation has more political freedom than yours, as you are only in the top 39%.

[Texkentuck]

Of course your nation is against this proposal to replace. Your nation doesn't have the right to bear arms so by not having such a stance on freedom to assemble your nation may uprise in an all out protest but of course your government has total control. Our government has a lot of power but for my nation would like for the world Assembly to pass a law for the difference between rebellion and protest. Above all we want a proposal in the future for all wealthy nations to have a legislative amount of money only for wealthy nation to come together to close the wealth gap. In the long run the money which goes to workers in our nation will use the money to put forth ingenuity. Nations who can't put fourth such funds their won't be apart of the bill because their wealth gap is closed because they are all broke. Your nation is wealthy so in the future hope your nation will support such a proposal. This proposal to my nation doesn't hold as much important because are political freedoms are insane.

"but of course your government has total control" - Just because our populace doesn't have legal guns doesn't mean we can't have a revolution. Of course we wont, because we are in the top 18% for political freedom, and top 12% for civil rights. We are a direct democracy.

"pass a law for the difference between rebellion and protest" - a rebellion is not peaceful. Resolution 27, the one that is being repealed, allows the use of force against protests that are not peaceful.





"This proposal to my nation doesn't hold as much important because are political freedoms are insane" - our nation has more political freedom than yours, as you are only in the top 39%.

Sir you've failed to take into consideration your nation has been around longer and it's great that your people baught into your suppressive regime. By the time our nation has as many people as yours it's quite possible this may not hold true. Your political freedoms superb in the since your people want a State-owned companies Which are reasonably common but not in Texkentuck in which the people run the show. We are more free regardless of rhetoric and the propaganda. Why yes sir... You Are SUPERB of a nation on political freedoms.

[Riviere Renard]

"but of course your government has total control" - Just because our populace doesn't have legal guns doesn't mean we can't have a revolution. Of course we wont, because we are in the top 18% for political freedom, and top 12% for civil rights. We are a direct democracy.

"pass a law for the difference between rebellion and protest" - a rebellion is not peaceful. Resolution 27, the one that is being repealed, allows the use of force against protests that are not peaceful.

"This proposal to my nation doesn't hold as much important because are political freedoms are insane" - our nation has more political freedom than yours, as you are only in the top 39%.

Sir you've failed to take into consideration your nation has been around longer and it's great that your people baught into your suppressive regime. By the time our nation has as many people as yours it's quite possible this may not hold true. Your political freedoms superb in the since your people want a State-owned companies Which are reasonably common but not in Texkentuck in which the people run the show. We are more free regardless of rhetoric and the propaganda. Why yes sir... You Are SUPERB of a nation on political freedoms.

1: I'm not a 'sir'. I am non-binary.
2: You don't seem to understand how freedom is measured, nor how it is relevant to this resolution. We have an extreme sense of political expression and freedom of speech, which demands a right to peacefully protest. The repeal of this right, even temporarily, to fix minor issues, I feel, is a poor choice.
3: Calling a nation with more civil and political rights than yours a "suppressive regime" is not just disrespectful, it's disingenuous. There is no real point to debating you on which of our nations is more free, as neither is that relevant to resolution 27, nor is it helpful.

[Greater Cesnica]

Sir you've failed to take into consideration your nation has been around longer and it's great that your people baught into your suppressive regime. By the time our nation has as many people as yours it's quite possible this may not hold true. Your political freedoms superb in the since your people want a State-owned companies Which are reasonably common but not in Texkentuck in which the people run the show. We are more free regardless of rhetoric and the propaganda. Why yes sir... You Are SUPERB of a nation on political freedoms.

1: I'm not a 'sir'. I am non-binary.
2: You don't seem to understand how freedom is measured, nor how it is relevant to this resolution. We have an extreme sense of political expression and freedom of speech, which demands a right to peacefully protest. The repeal of this right, even temporarily, to fix minor issues, I feel, is a poor choice.
3: Calling a nation with more civil and political rights than yours a "suppressive regime" is not just disrespectful, it's disingenuous. There is no real point to debating you on which of our nations is more free, as neither is that relevant to resolution 27, nor is it helpful.

OOC: To be fair, there are not one, but two replacements being worked on. In light of this, the repeal doesn't seem that big of a blow to civil liberties.

[Texkentuck]

1: I'm not a 'sir'. I am non-binary.
2: You don't seem to understand how freedom is measured, nor how it is relevant to this resolution. We have an extreme sense of political expression and freedom of speech, which demands a right to peacefully protest. The repeal of this right, even temporarily, to fix minor issues, I feel, is a poor choice.
3: Calling a nation with more civil and political rights than yours a "suppressive regime" is not just disrespectful, it's disingenuous. There is no real point to debating you on which of our nations is more free, as neither is that relevant to resolution 27, nor is it helpful.

OOC: To be fair, there are not one, but two replacements being worked on. In light of this, the repeal doesn't seem that big of a blow to civil liberties.

[Goobergunchia]

The General Assembly resolution Repeal "Freedom of Assembly" was passed 8,808 votes to 6,373.