[DRAFT] Replacement for Freedom of Association (GA#550)

[Calamari Lands]

OOC: So, GA#550 has been relatively controversial and a lot of people believe that it's not as good as it could be. There's two repeals being drafted, so that goes to show how controversial it is. Personally, I've put it upon myself to make the potential post-repeal replacement. I'm sure that the current draft I have has many problems, so I look forward to seeing everyone's comments, and hopefully it will end up being a resolution that most of us can accept and that doesn't use ambiguous language.

DRAFT 5

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that - while many previous resolutions (such as GA#35, GA#430, and GA#436) guarantee basic rights to individuals - there remains a need for the rights of associations and organizations to be clarified,

Believing that all individuals should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests and does not harm others, regardless of their government's position on such an association, and

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisations, but must nonetheless be outlined by these organisations,

Hereby declares that:

1. For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. An "organization" shall be defined as an organized group of people with a particular purpose (such as a business - private or public depending on a nation's economic structure - or political pressure group), and
      
   2. "Associating with an organization" shall be defined as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization.
2. All organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:
   
   1. If a significant number of an organisation's members or leaders have, during their membership, been found guilty of crimes (by national or WA law) of violence or crimes regarding property/economic law committed in furtherance of the organisation's goals, and the organisation has failed to take proportionate disciplinary measures in response, member nations may dissolve it, ban membership of it, or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law.
      
   2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence or terrorist crimes through actions or verbal expressions that would fall under hate speech, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them in accordance with their national law.
3. Member nations must allow any individual, regardless of their possession (or lack of possession) of any arbitrary and reductive characteristic, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, including contracts or similar documents in the case of organizations that keep track of membership. Similarly, organizations shall not discriminate against other individuals solely due to their possessing or not possessing any arbitrary and reductive characteristic. Furthermore, organizations must not deny historical genocides or similar repression of marginalized groups, as this will be considered discrimination.
   
4. No individual may be incarcerated, punished or otherwise penalised solely for being a member of, or associated with, an organization, unless that individual has joined an organisation in the circumstances listed in Articles 2a or 2b.

Co authored by Tinhampton.

DRAFT 4

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that - while many previous resolutions (such as GA#35, GA#430, and GA#436) guarantee basic rights to individuals - there remains a need for the rights of associations and organizations to be clarified,

Believing that all individuals should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests and does not harm others, regardless of their government's position on such an association, and

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisations, but must nonetheless be outlined by these organisations,

Hereby declares that:

1. For the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. An "organization" shall be defined as an organized group of people with a particular purpose (such as a business or political pressure group), and
      
   2. "Associating with an organization" shall be defined as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization.
2. All organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:
   
   1. If the leadership of an organization or a significant number of its members has been found guilty of organized or repeated crimes (by national or WA law) through the organization, member nations may dissolve it or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law. Member nations must not arbitrarily outlaw or dissolve organisations, and previous crimes of members as well as crimes unrelated to their organization and its other members should not affect their rights stated in this proposal.
      
   2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence or terrorist crimes through actions or verbal expressions that would fall under hate speech, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them in accordance with their national law.
      
   3. If a judge or politician with a public and neutral government position were to associate with an organization in a way that compromises their role in government or falls under corruption-based crimes outlined by national or WA law, such as bribes in exchange of favour or political influence, member nations may forbid them from such association. [Note: This clause may be eliminated in the next draft, or significantly edited.]
3. Member nations must allow any individual, regardless of their possession (or lack of possession) of any arbitrary and reductive characteristic, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, including contracts or similar documents in the case of organizations that keep track of membership. Similarly, organizations shall not discriminate against other individuals solely due to their possessing or not possessing any arbitrary and reductive characteristic.
   
4. No individual may be incarcerated, punished or otherwise penalised solely for being a member of, or associated with, an organization, unless that individual has joined an organisation in the circumstances listed in Articles 2a, 2b, or 2c.

Co authored by Tinhampton.

DRAFT 3

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that many previous WA resolutions guarantee basic rights to individuals, such as GA#35

Understanding, however, that there is a demand for rights related to associations and organizations to be stated clearly,

Defending the position that all individuals should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests but doesn't harm others, regardless of what their government's position on this association would be,

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisms, but must be outlined by them,

Hereby:

Defines "associating with an organization" as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization, this being an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or political pressure group.

Requires that all organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:

1. If the leadership of an organization or a significant amount of its membership has been found guilty of organized or repeated crimes in the nation they operate in or by WA law, member nations may dissolve it or enforce harsh penalties within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, as long as it meets the requirements of other WA resolutions that protect rights such as free speech so that member nations won't outlaw organizations arbitrarily.
   
2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence and terrorist crimes through actions or verbal expressions that would fall under hate speech, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them following their national law.
   
3. If a judge or politician with a public and neutral government position were to associate with an organization in a way that compromises their role in government or falls under corruption-based crimes outlined by national or WA law.
   
   Mandates that member nations must allow any individual, regardless of factors such as gender or wealth, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, including contracts or similar documents in the case of organizations that keep track of membership. Similarly, organizations shall not discriminate, following the guidelines of GA#35 Article 1c.
   
   Establishes that no individual may be incarcerated, punished or given a penalty exclusively for being part of an organization or being associated with it, unless the individual has taken part in the actions or processes mentioned in the limitations stated above.

DRAFT 2.5

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that many previous WA resolutions guarantee basic rights to sentient beings,

Understanding, however, that there is a demand for rights related to associations and organizations to be stated clearly,

Defending the position that all individuals should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests but doesn't harm others, regardless of what their government's position on this association would be,

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisms, but must be outlined by them,

Hereby:

Defines "associating with an organization" as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization, this being an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or political pressure group.

Requires that all organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:

1. If the leadership of an organization has been found guilty of organized crime through their organization in the nation they operate in or by WA law, member nations may dissolve it or enforce harsh penalties within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, as long as it meets the requirements of other WA resolutions that protect rights such as free speech so that member nations won't outlaw organizations arbitrarily.
   
2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence and terrorist crimes through actions and not simply words, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them following their national law.
   
3. If a judge or politician with a public and neutral government position were to associate with an organization in a way that compromises their role in government or falls under corruption-based crimes outlined by national or WA law.
   
   Mandates that member nations must allow any individual, regardless of factors such as gender or wealth, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, including contracts or similar documents in the case of organizations that keep track of membership.
   
   Establishes that no individual may be incarcerated, punished or given a penalty exclusively for being part of an organization or being associated with it, unless the individual has taken part in the actions or processes mentioned in the limitations stated above.

DRAFT 2

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that many previous WA resolutions guarantee basic rights to sentient beings,

Understanding, however, that there is a demand for rights related to associations and organizations to be stated clearly,

Defending the position that all individuals should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests but doesn't harm others, regardless of what their government's position on this association would be,

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisms, but must be outlined by them,

Hereby:

Defines "associating with an organization" as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization, this being an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or political pressure group.

Requires that all organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:

1. If the leadership of an organization has been found guilty of organized crime through their organization in the nation they operate in or by WA law, member nations may dissolve it or enforce harsh penalties within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, as long as it meets the requirements of other WA resolutions that protect rights such as free speech so that member nations won't outlaw organizations arbitrarily.
   
2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence and terrorist crimes through actions and not simply words, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them following their national law.
   
3. If a politician with a neutral government position were to associate with an organization in a way that compromises their role in government or falls under corruption-based crimes outlined by national or WA law.
   
   Mandates that member nations must allow any individual, regardless of factors such as gender or wealth, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association.
   
   Establishes that no individual may be incarcerated, punished or given a penalty exclusively for being part of an organization or being associated with it, unless the individual has taken part in the actions or processes mentioned in the limitations stated above.

DRAFT 1

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that many previous WA resolutions guarantee basic rights to sentient beings,

Understanding, however, that there is a demand for rights related to associations and organizations to be stated clearly,

Defending the position that all sentient beings should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests but doesn't harm others, regardless of what their government's position on this association would be,

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisms, but must be outlined by them,

Hereby:

Defines "associating with an organization" as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization, this being an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or political pressure group.

Requires that all organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:

1. If a member nation has outlawed private property, they are not forced to recognise private business entities as legal organizations.
   
2. If an organization has been found guilty of an act considered a crime in the nation they operate in or by WA law, member nations may dissolve it as part of the penalty within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, as long as it meets the requirements of other WA resolutions that protect rights such as free speech so that member nations won't outlaw harmless organizations.
   
3. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of sentient beings, consistently enciting violence and terrorist crimes, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them following their national law.

Mandates that member nations must allow any sentient individual, regardless of factors such as gender or wealth, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, through a contract or a legally binding public statement subject to scrutiny by national law.

Establishes that no individual may be incarcerated, punished or given a penalty exclusively for being part of an organization or being associated with it, unless the organization goes against clauses 1-3 of the previous section and the individual has been proven to be involved in that activity.

Clarifies that this resolution shall not contradict constitutional matters such as a limited number of parties in a member nation's political system.

[North Supreria]

Mandates that member nations must allow any sentient individual, regardless of factors such as gender or wealth, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, through a contract or a legally binding public statement subject to scrutiny by national law.

North Supreria would like to thank the ambassador of Calamari Lands for drafting a proposal to replace GA#550. Firstly, it seems important to North Supreria to also describe that, in addition to member nations, organizations may not refuse any sentient individual on the basis of discriminatory grounds to join their organization.

Defending the position that all sentient beings should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests but doesn't harm others, regardless of what their government's position on this association would be.

Secondly, it is important to describe something with regard to people who hold public, neutral (government) positions with regard to associating with an organization. These people must maintain neutrality by not being able to join an organization or by being able to join an organization, but not gain any privileges and power from an organization that affect their function and that these people should not be influenced by organization to act in their public function as expected and should be put under pressure by them. As far as North Supreria is concerned, regulations regarding public, neutral (government) functions can be established internationally, but it could also be described, in the proposal, as a national matter.

North Supreria wants to note that the current replacement for GA#550 already looks a lot better and will ensure less abuse to violate human rights.

[Uan aa Boa]

Your exception 1 for planned economies seems to be unnecessary. If engaging in business is against the law of a given nation then an organisation doing so would be subject to restrictions under the more general exception 2.

[Brezzia]

I think that allowing right limitations to nations and guaranteeing free speech are the necessary additions to the previous resolution.

I'm not convinced by the "harmless organizations" and i would suggest you "arbitrary outlaw organizations".

I don't see necessary to add an exception for private propriety in socialist nations: they ban the private possession of the means of production and the exploitation of man by man, therefore it will fall within their national sovereignty and does not conflict with freedom of speech.

[Uan aa Boa]

Exception 2 seems to allow considerable over-reach. How do you envisage previous free speech resolutions preventing organisations being dissolved by the government over, for example, tax irregularities?

[Calamari Lands]

"Thanks to all the previous delegations for their feedback, it will be applied or addressed ASAP."

[Imperium Anglorum]

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that many previous WA resolutions guarantee basic rights to sentient beings,

Understanding, however, that there is a demand for rights related to associations and organizations to be stated clearly,

Defending the position that all sentient beings should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests but doesn't harm others, regardless of what their government's position on this association would be,

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisms, but must be outlined by them,

Hereby:

Defines "associating with an organization" as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization, this being an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or political pressure group.

Requires that all organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:

1. If a member nation has outlawed private property, they are not forced to recognise private business entities as legal organizations.
   
2. If an organization has been found guilty of an act considered a crime in the nation they operate in or by WA law, member nations may dissolve it as part of the penalty within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, as long as it meets the requirements of other WA resolutions that protect rights such as free speech so that member nations won't outlaw harmless organizations.
   
3. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of sentient beings, consistently enciting violence and terrorist crimes, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them following their national law.

Mandates that member nations must allow any sentient individual, regardless of factors such as gender or wealth, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, through a contract or a legally binding public statement subject to scrutiny by national law.

Establishes that no individual may be incarcerated, punished or given a penalty exclusively for being part of an organization or being associated with it, unless the organization goes against clauses 1-3 of the previous section and the individual has been proven to be involved in that activity.

Clarifies that this resolution shall not contradict constitutional matters such as a limited number of parties in a member nation's political system.

A few remarks:

How do you find an organisation guilty of a certain act? This exact question came up when Boston Castle was drafting his resolution and had language similar to your current draft in it. If an organisation can only be dissolved when it is itself guilty of committing certain activities, then the NSDAP would be a legal organisation because it was the German state and the leadership of that state (who just happened to be supporters of national socialism) that did all the illegal warfare, genocide, and other terrible things. Saying 'but the next clause would deal with the Nazis' also doesn't really count when you just imagine a Schmazi party that does all the same illegal warfare just without the genocide.

Permitting a generalised hatred exception is the same sort of thing which the current resolution is being repealed for right now. If you want to take that seriously, then you will need to establish a more coherent test. Also excise 'sapient beings'. This isn't Star Trek, we have a word for this: 'individual'.

To join an organisation, your proposal would force people to have a contract. Well that's just golly. Now, to go to mass at the local Anglican church, you need to register and sign a legal contract with them. Or to become a member of the Christian Democratic Party of East Germany you need to put your name on a list. Surely this couldn't go wrong in any way at all!

I'm against the idea of allowing one-party states to exist. Being a one-party state is not an ideology in the same way slavery is not an ideology. Insofar as we're going to mandate freedom of religion and the legality of labour unions, I think I'll be in safe company to say that we should also protect political minorities. If you include your Clarifies clause, I will not vote in favour of your proposal.

[Calamari Lands]

"We have posted a second draft that should improve on the previous one through everyone's suggestions."
North Supreria said: Firstly, it seems important to North Supreria to also describe that, in addition to member nations, organizations may not refuse any sentient individual on the basis of discriminatory grounds to join their organization.
"We've only found a problem with this. For example, a right wing party should be able to deny membership to a left wing individual requesting to join. Making them 'not refuse any sentient individual on the basis of discriminatory grounds', in a way, is making all organizations accept any individuals. Perhaps we have misunderstood, and if we have, we look forward to a more detailed explanation."

[North Supreria]

How do you find an organisation guilty of a certain act? This exact question came up when Boston Castle was drafting his resolution and had language similar to your current draft in it. If an organisation can only be dissolved when it is itself guilty of committing certain activities, then the NSDAP would be a legal organisation because it was the German state and the leadership of that state (who just happened to be supporters of national socialism) that did all the illegal warfare, genocide, and other terrible things. Saying 'but the next clause would deal with the Nazis' also doesn't really count when you just imagine a Schmazi party that does all the same illegal warfare just without the genocide.

North Supreria is surprised at some elements of the criticism the Ambassador of Imperium Anglorum made on the possible replacement of GA#550. An organization can be guilty of a certain act, for example as soon as a (important) member or members of an organization commits a criminal offense in the name of or with the ideas of an organization. This could possibly be better formulated in the proposal. North Supreria does not understand the comparison with the NSDAP, its ideas and the horrific acts that resulted from it. The leader of Germany at the time has violated more treaties that are currently set internationally and has not been stopped by a law since he gained full power.

Permitting a generalised hatred exception is the same sort of thing which the current resolution is being repealed for right now. If you want to take that seriously, then you will need to establish a more coherent test. Also excise 'sapient beings'. This isn't Star Trek, we have a word for this: 'individual'.

North Supreria agrees with the Ambassador. We have to be careful with these texts, as this can lead to the same thing as GA#550, where governments decide for themselves when there is hate speech towards minority groups.

To join an organisation, your proposal would force people to have a contract. Well that's just golly. Now, to go to mass at the local Anglican church, you need to register and sign a legal contract with them. Or to become a member of the Christian Democratic Party of East Germany you need to put your name on a list. Surely this couldn't go wrong in any way at all!

North Supreria is surprised at the ambassador's criticism. It is common for organizations to keep track of who is a member for a variety of reasons. This can be for administrative purposes or because of the function of the organization. If the organization asks for money from its members, it is important to know who is a member, for example. If a political system provides public funding based on membership, it is also important to know how many members a political party has. Following a mass at a local church does not necessarily mean that someone is a member of an organization, perhaps rather a member of a community. If this churchgoer is committed to the church, he can join the organization.

I'm against the idea of allowing one-party states to exist. Being a one-party state is not an ideology in the same way slavery is not an ideology. Insofar as we're going to mandate freedom of religion and the legality of labour unions, I think I'll be in safe company to say that we should also protect political minorities. If you include your Clarifies clause, I will not vote in favour of your proposal.

North Supreria agrees with the Ambassador and we would therefore urge the ambassador of Calamari Lands to remove this clause and to change it. Countries must offer political organizations an opportunity to participate in the political system/elections.

[Calamari Lands]

How do you find an organisation guilty of a certain act? This exact question came up when Boston Castle was drafting his resolution and had language similar to your current draft in it. If an organisation can only be dissolved when it is itself guilty of committing certain activities, then the NSDAP would be a legal organisation because it was the German state and the leadership of that state (who just happened to be supporters of national socialism) that did all the illegal warfare, genocide, and other terrible things. Saying 'but the next clause would deal with the Nazis' also doesn't really count when you just imagine a Schmazi party that does all the same illegal warfare just without the genocide.

North Supreria is surprised at some elements of the criticism the Ambassador of Imperium Anglorum made on the possible replacement of GA#550. An organization can be guilty of a certain act, for example as soon as a (important) member or members of an organization commits a criminal offense in the name of or with the ideas of an organization. This could possibly be better formulated in the proposal. North Supreria does not understand the comparison with the NSDAP, its ideas and the horrific acts that resulted from it. The leader of Germany at the time has violated more treaties that are currently set internationally and has not been stopped by a law since he gained full power.

Permitting a generalised hatred exception is the same sort of thing which the current resolution is being repealed for right now. If you want to take that seriously, then you will need to establish a more coherent test. Also excise 'sapient beings'. This isn't Star Trek, we have a word for this: 'individual'.

North Supreria agrees with the Ambassador. We have to be careful with these texts, as this can lead to the same thing as GA#550, where governments decide for themselves when there is hate speech towards minority groups.

To join an organisation, your proposal would force people to have a contract. Well that's just golly. Now, to go to mass at the local Anglican church, you need to register and sign a legal contract with them. Or to become a member of the Christian Democratic Party of East Germany you need to put your name on a list. Surely this couldn't go wrong in any way at all!

North Supreria is surprised at the ambassador's criticism. It is common for organizations to keep track of who is a member for a variety of reasons. This can be for administrative purposes or because of the function of the organization. If the organization asks for money from its members, it is important to know who is a member, for example. If a political system provides public funding based on membership, it is also important to know how many members a political party has. Following a mass at a local church does not necessarily mean that someone is a member of an organization, perhaps rather a member of a community. If this churchgoer is committed to the church, he can join the organization.

I'm against the idea of allowing one-party states to exist. Being a one-party state is not an ideology in the same way slavery is not an ideology. Insofar as we're going to mandate freedom of religion and the legality of labour unions, I think I'll be in safe company to say that we should also protect political minorities. If you include your Clarifies clause, I will not vote in favour of your proposal.

North Supreria agrees with the Ambassador and we would therefore urge the ambassador of Calamari Lands to remove this clause and to change it. Countries must offer political organizations an opportunity to participate in the political system/elections.

"These criticisms have been noted and applied in the second draft."

[North Supreria]

"We have posted a second draft that should improve on the previous one through everyone's suggestions."
North Supreria said: Firstly, it seems important to North Supreria to also describe that, in addition to member nations, organizations may not refuse any sentient individual on the basis of discriminatory grounds to join their organization.
"We've only found a problem with this. For example, a right wing party should be able to deny membership to a left wing individual requesting to join. Making them 'not refuse any sentient individual on the basis of discriminatory grounds', in a way, is making all organizations accept any individuals. Perhaps we have misunderstood, and if we have, we look forward to a more detailed explanation."

North Supreria is sorry for the miscommunication. We understand where the confusion originated. There are indeed at least two exceptions that could perhaps be explained in more detail.
1. Political parties may refuse people to hold office on the basis of substantive differences that are contrary to the substantive principles of the party.
2. Organizations may refuse people who have not yet reached the age of majority, as soon as (1) no permission has been given from a parent or guardian, (2: optional) it concerns organizations that are asking for a contribution, (3) it concerns organizations that are about legal adult matters.

It may be that the ambassador or other ambassadors have additions to this, but this seems relevant to consider. North Supreria is especially concerned that people will be excluded on the grounds of sex, gender, skin color, cultural background. Of course, this should never be the case.

[Imperium Anglorum]

How do you find an organisation guilty of a certain act? This exact question came up when Boston Castle was drafting his resolution and had language similar to your current draft in it. If an organisation can only be dissolved when it is itself guilty of committing certain activities, then the NSDAP would be a legal organisation because it was the German state and the leadership of that state (who just happened to be supporters of national socialism) that did all the illegal warfare, genocide, and other terrible things. Saying 'but the next clause would deal with the Nazis' also doesn't really count when you just imagine a Schmazi party that does all the same illegal warfare just without the genocide.

North Supreria is surprised at some elements of the criticism the Ambassador of Imperium Anglorum made on the possible replacement of GA#550. An organization can be guilty of a certain act, for example as soon as a (important) member or members of an organization commits a criminal offense in the name of or with the ideas of an organization. This could possibly be better formulated in the proposal. North Supreria does not understand the comparison with the NSDAP, its ideas and the horrific acts that resulted from it. The leader of Germany at the time has violated more treaties that are currently set internationally and has not been stopped by a law since he gained full power.

Corporate criminal activity isn't universally recognised. Traditionally at common law, 'a corporation cannot commit treason, or felony, or other crime, in its corporate capacity: though its members may, in their distinct individual capacities'. Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 464 (1765). Even when recognised, corporate responsibility is limited to malfeasance by officers thereof, rather than employees generally. Eg Model Penal Code s 2.07. You also don't seem to understand my point, which was was to draw comparison to modern Germany's prohibition of the Nazi party rather than the Nazi's failure to prohibit themselves in 1933.

If an organisation can only be dissolved if it itself is found guilty of some activities, it then follows that most any organisation will then claim that any malfeasance was done by members, employees, or officers without the involvement of the organisation as whole. Eg many people have been arrested for marching on the Capitol in January. Organisations like the 'Proud Boys', however, have not been found responsible for trespassing or property destruction because those organisations are legal personalities and the only people who could have trespassed, interfered, or destroyed property are members thereof and not the body corporate.

To join an organisation, your proposal would force people to have a contract. Well that's just golly. Now, to go to mass at the local Anglican church, you need to register and sign a legal contract with them. Or to become a member of the Christian Democratic Party of East Germany you need to put your name on a list. Surely this couldn't go wrong in any way at all!

North Supreria is surprised at the ambassador's criticism. It is common for organizations to keep track of who is a member for a variety of reasons. This can be for administrative purposes or because of the function of the organization. If the organization asks for money from its members, it is important to know who is a member, for example. If a political system provides public funding based on membership, it is also important to know how many members a political party has. Following a mass at a local church does not necessarily mean that someone is a member of an organization, perhaps rather a member of a community. If this churchgoer is committed to the church, he can join the organization.

Freedom of association includes things like participating in a debate, joining a fraternity, etc. These are not groups in which you must have some kind of contract to participate in. If you think that the world works this way get outside more.

[North Supreria]

If an organisation can only be dissolved if it itself is found guilty of some activities, it then follows that most any organisation will then claim that any malfeasance was done by members, employees, or officers without the involvement of the organisation as whole. Eg many people have been arrested for marching on the Capitol in January. Organisations like the 'Proud Boys', however, have not been found responsible for trespassing or property destruction because those organisations are legal personalities and the only people who could have trespassed, interfered, or destroyed property are members thereof and not the body corporate.

North Supreria understands the Ambassador's reasoning. It therefore seems to me essential that in such a case an independent investigation is carried out within an organization, in order to find out what the function of the organization has been in the criminal activities. This way, evidence can be collected. This can of course also be included in the proposal.

Freedom of association includes things like participating in a debate, joining a fraternity, etc. These are not groups in which you must have some kind of contract to participate in. If you think that the world works this way get outside more.

North Supreria would like to distinguish incidental participation and joining an organization. Attending a mass or participating in a debate are incidental participation and you don't have to join an organization. Joining a fraternity or debating club is joining an organization, and it is essential to keep track of who is a member of the fraternity or debating club, because contributions are often asked.

[North Supreria]

[*] If a politician with a neutral government position were to associate with an organization in a way that compromises their role in government or falls under corruption-based crimes outlined by national or WA law.

North Supreria's input did not only mean politicians. Judges is a good example where the same applies. Perhaps it is better to refer to it as people who hold public, neutral (government) positions.

North Supreria would like to recommend to the ambassador to at least encourage organizations to keep some form of records about their members, so that criminal activities can be better linked to organizations. If organizations do not keep records of their members at all, it is guesswork about their members and any connection to criminal offenses. According to North Supreria this should be mandatory, but apparently it is a controversial topic. We think it would be wise to at least recommend it or describe it as a national affair.

[Calamari Lands]

"Added some of Supreria's suggestions to a 2.5th Draft."

[Uan aa Boa]

Requires that all organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:

1. If the leadership of an organization has been found guilty of organized crime through their organization in the nation they operate in or by WA law, member nations may dissolve it or enforce harsh penalties within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, as long as it meets the requirements of other WA resolutions that protect rights such as free speech so that member nations won't outlaw organizations arbitrarily.
   
2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence and terrorist crimes through actions and not simply words, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them following their national law.

This is unacceptable. It seems to me that my nation could have robust laws against incitement to violence by individuals, yet be unable to act against a neo-Nazi organisation (a) whose members are frequently involved in racist violence without sanction from the organisation and (b) as a corporate entity incites racist violence by means of words, encouraging its members to carry out such violence. The violence is committed by individuals who are not leaders and the incitement, even if it would break national law when carried out by an individual, is protected by clause 2. Incitement to violence should not be protected as freedom of speech.

[Calamari Lands]

"Posted a new, updated draft."

[North Supreria]

"Posted a new, updated draft."

North Supreria is happy with the current updated proposal and will therefore support a repeal and a replacement should it come to a vote.

[Boston Castle]

Still missing the mark. You haven't even defined point 3 beyond to say "If a judge or political official does [x]" which, again, is a violation of their right to be a member of a group. Arbitrary distinctions are no less arbitrary because 550 is controversial. And just as a note, corruption =/= or does not necessarily equal anything to do with association-if you're touching that at all, it needs to be dealt with in its own separate resolution-so would the impartiality of the justice system. Though you might be very close to touching the ideological ban rule in any instance you put that in there.

I'm still going to campaign against any repeal and any replacement. 550 more than adequately does the job it was intended to do because members are required to interpret legislation in good faith. I understand the impulse to say they won't, but remember two things: there's no way to really measure compliance/non-compliance beyond a member stating as much that they aren't and even so, it's not like the problems that you, Scazilagasti, and the third nation (genuinely do not remember their name, my apologies) are really easily fixable beyond slapping a definition or two on there-which would really be self-defeating.

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: The Tinhamptonian delegation will carry out large-scale rebuttals to all Castellian counter-campaigns regarding their Ambassador Rosenborg's resolution as appropriate.

As for your draft, Comrade Vanya, do consider the following, however imperfect it may be:

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that - while many previous resolutions (such as GA#35, GA#430, and GA#436) guarantee basic rights to individuals - there remains a need for the rights of associations and organizations to be clarified,

Believing that all individuals should be able to freely associate in a way that benefits their own interests and does not harm others, regardless of their government's position on such an association, and

Admitting that the limitations to these rights are often better specified by individual nations than international organisations, but must nonetheless be outlined by these organisations,

Enacts as follows.

1. In this resolution:
   
   1. An "organization" shall be defined as an organized group of people with a particular purpose (such as a business or political pressure group), and
   2. "Associating with an organization" shall be defined as allowing oneself to be officially connected with or seen to be supportive of an organization.
2. All organizations and associations between these organizations or individual beings must be recognised as legal, with the following limitations:
   
   1. If the leadership of an organization or a significant amount of its membership has been found guilty of organized or repeated crimes in the nation they operate in or by WA law, member nations may dissolve it or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law. Member nations must not arbitrarily outlaw or dissolve organisations.
   2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence and terrorist crimes through actions or verbal expressions that would fall under hate speech, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them in accordance with their national law.
   3. If a judge or politician with a public and neutral government position were to associate with an organization in a way that compromises their role in government or falls under corruption-based crimes outlined by national or WA law, member nations may forbid them from such association.
3. Member nations must allow any individual, regardless of their possession (or lack of possession) of any arbitrary and reductive characteristic, or any organization to associate with an organization as long as both parties involved agree to the association, including contracts or similar documents in the case of organizations that keep track of membership. Similarly, organizations shall not discriminate against other individuals solely due to their possessing or not possessing any arbitrary and reductive characteristic.
4. No individual may be incarcerated, punished or otherwise penalised solely for being a member of, or associated with, an organization, unless that individual has joined an organisation in the circumstances listed in Articles 2a, 2b, or 2c.

[Uan aa Boa]

My concerns have been substantially addressed in the third draft - thanks.

As a quibble, "a significant amount of its members" is a little awkward. Perhaps "a significant number" or "a significant proportion?" And perhaps this clause should look for a direct link between an organisation and the crimes committed by its members, and discount past offences or some types of crimes. You wouldn't want to allow a government to suppress Extinction Rebellion because its members have previously been convicted of organised peaceful civil disobedience, and it would be harsh to close down a chess club because, unbeknownst to the organisers, a large number of its members turned out to be involved in mafia money laundering.

In clause 2 I'd like to see "violence or terrorist crimes" rather than "violence and terrorist crimes" to avoid hate groups claiming that randomly beating up members of a minority doesn't count as terrorism. Is the mention of terrorism as opposed to violence in general really needed here?

And as Boston Castle has pointed out, clause 3 is currently an unfinished thought. I can't help thinking that this resolution may not need this clause at all. Are there any organisations that politicians would invariably be compromised by membership of? I suspect that it would be possible to be a Freemason, or part of Opus Dei or whatever else and still be careful to avoid conflicts of interest. The corruption lies in the actions, not the membership.

[Calamari Lands]

"The last suggestions have been noted and a fourth draft will be produced ASAP."

[Calamari Lands]

"Draft 4 has been posted."

[Uan aa Boa]

If the leadership of an organization or a significant number of its members has been found guilty of organized or repeated crimes (by national or WA law) through the organization, member nations may dissolve it or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law. Member nations must not arbitrarily outlaw or dissolve organisations, and previous crimes of members as well as crimes unrelated to their organization and its other members should not affect their rights stated in this proposal.

While acknowledging that this is really hard to word correctly I don't think you've quite got it yet. Does the leadership of the organisation mean the leaders as individuals, the leaders jointly, or something else? And how is a crime committed "through an organisation"? How is crime related or unrelated to an organisations other members?

How about

If a significant number of an organisation's members have, during their membership, been found guilty of crimes (by national or WA law) of violence or against property committed in furtherance of the organisation's goals, and the organisation has failed to take proportionate disciplinary measures in response, member nations may dissolve it, ban membership of it, or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law.

I'm also wondering whether it would be considered acceptable to add something on denial of historical acts of genocide to the second clause.

[Calamari Lands]

If the leadership of an organization or a significant number of its members has been found guilty of organized or repeated crimes (by national or WA law) through the organization, member nations may dissolve it or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law. Member nations must not arbitrarily outlaw or dissolve organisations, and previous crimes of members as well as crimes unrelated to their organization and its other members should not affect their rights stated in this proposal.

While acknowledging that this is really hard to word correctly I don't think you've quite got it yet. Does the leadership of the organisation mean the leaders as individuals, the leaders jointly, or something else? And how is a crime committed "through an organisation"? How is crime related or unrelated to an organisations other members?

How about

If a significant number of an organisation's members have, during their membership, been found guilty of crimes (by national or WA law) of violence or against property committed in furtherance of the organisation's goals, and the organisation has failed to take proportionate disciplinary measures in response, member nations may dissolve it, ban membership of it, or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law.

I'm also wondering whether it would be considered acceptable to add something on denial of historical acts of genocide to the second clause.

"We would like to thank Uan aa Boa's delegation for their advice, we've deemed their wording appropriate and it has been applied in the resolution. Their suggestion of a clause regarding historical denial has been added as a possibility, and the clause relating to judges and politicians will most likely be removed in Draft 5."