[DRAFT 3] Prohibition of Hostile Architecture

[Tsaivao]

OOC: This is the first time I've tried doing a World Assembly proposal, so hopefully this is good!

Category: Public Safety, Mild

The World Assembly,

Commending the intentions of GAR#344: Minimum Standard of Living Act to support the homeless and poverty-stricken.

Concerned by the usage of unethical and unsafe civil engineering to dissuade individuals from resting in outdoor spaces.

Disturbed that this type of architecture is intended to intimidate or even physically harm individuals.

Noting that hostile architecture may be discomforting or extremely harmful to all individuals, not just those who are seeking temporary shelter.

Further noting that the provisions for the homeless provided in GAR#344 ultimately make this form of civil engineering unnecessary.

This legislation hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this legislation, the following:
   
   1. "Publicly-accessible" as a descriptor for an area wherein people are reasonably expected to be capable of interacting with or traveling through without trespassing.
   2. "Hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent an individual from accessing or resting on publicly-accessible property by the use of designs made to directly cause pain or discomfort to said individual.
2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all publicly-accessible outdoor spaces.
3. Provides an exemption for clause 2 in the case of fences or barricades that are intended to prevent individuals from accessing publicly-accessible outdoor spaces through an unintended method, so long as any spikes or barbs are clearly visible, above eye-level, and only designed to prevent individuals from illegally climbing over the barricade or fence.

Category: Public Safety, Mild

The World Assembly,

Commending the intentions of GAR#344: Minimum Standard of Living Act to support the homeless and poverty-stricken.

Concerned by the usage of unethical and unsafe civil engineering to dissuade individuals from resting in outdoor spaces.

Disturbed that this type of architecture is intended to intimidate or even physically harm individuals.

Noting that hostile architecture may be discomforting or extremely harmful to all individuals, not just those who are seeking temporary shelter.

Further noting that the provisions for the homeless provided in GAR#344 ultimately make this form of civil engineering unnecessary.

This legislation hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this legislation, the following:
   
   1. "Publicly-accessible" as a descriptor for an area wherein people are reasonably expected to be capable of interacting with or traveling through without trespassing.
   2. "Hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent an individual from accessing or resting on publicly-accessible property by the use of designs made to directly cause pain or discomfort to said individual.
2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all publicly-accessible outdoor spaces.

Category: Public Safety, Mild

The World Assembly,

Commending the intentions of GAR#344: Minimum Standard of Living Act to support the homeless and poverty-stricken.

Concerned by the usage of unethical and unsafe civil engineering to dissuade individuals from resting in outdoor spaces.

Disturbed that this type of architecture is intended to intimidate or even physically harm individuals.

Noting that hostile architecture may be discomforting or extremely harmful to all individuals, not just those who are seeking temporary shelter.

Further noting that the provisions for the homeless provided in GAR#344 ultimately make this form of civil engineering unnecessary.

This legislation hereby:

1. Defines "hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent an individual from accessing or resting on public property by the use of designs made to cause pain or discomfort to said individual.
2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all publicly-accessible outdoor spaces.

Category: Social Justice, Mild

The World Assembly,

Concerned on the treatment of the homeless and despaired across WA member nations.

Disturbed that many nations opt to ignore the problem through devious tactics rather than address the issue properly.

Determined to break down the animosity between homeless individuals and their governments.

Hopeful that compassion will improve the welfare and wellbeing of all who are homeless or transient.

Encouraged to convince member nations to treat the homeless with some level of personal dignity and compassion.

This legislation hereby:

1. Defines the following:
   
   1. A "homeless individual" as a citizen who is unable to live in a residence, especially if the individual cannot afford a home.
   2. "Hostile architecture" as a type of civil or practical engineering with the intent to prevent a homeless individual from accessing or resting on public or private property by the use of designs made to cause pain or discomfort to homeless individuals.
2. Mandates that hostile architecture is hereby prohibited in all public and private outdoor spaces.

"The people of Tsaivao wish to put forward this resolution for review, as we believe it could have great beneficial effect for the treatment of homeless individuals across the WA. Do note that this resolution does not attempt to 'fix' the homeless problem, nor does it attempt to justify the trespassing of homeless people on public or private property. This legislation is to make it such that homeless individuals are treated fairly and humanely, not as though they were animals who need to be scared off.

I am eager to learn of any feedback such that the draft may be improved! Thank you." --World Assembly Delegate Manhu Sentai Laogai

[Araraukar]

IC: "Were you aware of there already existing a resolution that requires all WA nations to provide basic creature comforts, such as shelter, to their inhabitants?"

OOC: I think it's called Minimum Standards of Living or something like that. Search the Passed Resolutions thread on this forum.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, you might have a bit better luck with this by making a few modifications. First, there's no reason to limit protections to homeless persons: on a gorgeous spring afternoon, a short nap on a park bench - the sun warming your whole body with its loving embrace - is part of any well-balanced and not-psychotic person's working day. I might not even mention the homeless, as existing law mandates member nations to find adequate homes for all, and we as an assembly are extremely quick to take offense at those who, for whatever reason, decline such benefits. But the fact is there are plenty of other groups and individuals who can benefit from this ban - skateboarders, families with young children, picnickers... the list goes on!"

"Then, you may have a problem with 'private property.' After all, it's private! And it's muh proppity! I might change 'private' here to 'publicly accessible.' That accounts for those artificial stone embankments and micropark structures that capitalist countries have lining the sidewalks of their financial districts while still technically belonging to the private building management rather than the public sidewalk - but doesn't prevent private companies from enforcing a mechanized, siestaless regime upon their poor hapless employees. Best of luck."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. States have a reasonable interest in ensuring that public architecture is not appropriated for nonstandard use. Over time, sleeping and camping on many architectural features will cause damage and wear out of conformity with anticipated lifespan. Give the degree of mandatory social support, there is no convincing reason to internationally regulate local architecture."

[Barfleur]

"While I appreciate the compassionate and humane principles behind this proposal, I cannot support it. With respect to private property, it is entirely legitimate to prevent such property from being used by individuals who have no right to it. And as to public property, the homeless are already protected by GA#344 'Minimum Standard of Living Act', and so I find this proposal unnecessary given that member nations are already obligated to provide 'minimum levels of access to [...] housing' (see GA#344, section 1)."

[Tsaivao]

"Thank you all very much for providing ample feedback on this proposal. Your concerns will be worked into a second draft when we are able to draft it."

IC: "Were you aware of there already existing a resolution that requires all WA nations to provide basic creature comforts, such as shelter, to their inhabitants?"

OOC: I think it's called Minimum Standards of Living or something like that. Search the Passed Resolutions thread on this forum.

"While I appreciate the compassionate and humane principles behind this proposal, I cannot support it. With respect to private property, it is entirely legitimate to prevent such property from being used by individuals who have no right to it. And as to public property, the homeless are already protected by GA#344 'Minimum Standard of Living Act', and so I find this proposal unnecessary given that member nations are already obligated to provide 'minimum levels of access to [...] housing' (see GA#344, section 1)."

"Honorable Ambassadors, thank you for informing me of this legislation. The intent of the proposal here, however, is independent of the provisions laid out in GA#344; hostile architecture may still be a tactic to prevent citizens from finding a place of rest in the case of more temporary/immediate displacement from their residence (e.g. victims of abuse, inebriated individuals, etc). Therefore, even in context of this past legislation, I do believe that this proposal is necessary moreso for the ethical and responsible treatment of those temporarily displaced, as well as regular citizens who may even be injured on certain fixtures of hostile architecture."

OOC: With all that said, I'm going to be reworking this proposal away from the homelessness perspective and more towards public safety. Perhaps a category change is in order!

"Ambassador, you might have a bit better luck with this by making a few modifications. First, there's no reason to limit protections to homeless persons: on a gorgeous spring afternoon, a short nap on a park bench - the sun warming your whole body with its loving embrace - is part of any well-balanced and not-psychotic person's working day. I might not even mention the homeless, as existing law mandates member nations to find adequate homes for all, and we as an assembly are extremely quick to take offense at those who, for whatever reason, decline such benefits. But the fact is there are plenty of other groups and individuals who can benefit from this ban - skateboarders, families with young children, picnickers... the list goes on!"

OOC: This as well is the reason I will be re-appropriating the proposal to a public safety issue, as others have graciously pointed out for me.

"Then, you may have a problem with 'private property.' After all, it's private! And it's muh proppity! I might change 'private' here to 'publicly accessible.' That accounts for those artificial stone embankments and micropark structures that capitalist countries have lining the sidewalks of their financial districts while still technically belonging to the private building management rather than the public sidewalk - but doesn't prevent private companies from enforcing a mechanized, siestaless regime upon their poor hapless employees. Best of luck."

IC: "Honorable Ambassador, at first I will admit that I did not agree on the requirements to protect private property in this matter, but after due consideration, I will accept the provision of 'publicly accessible' property to sufficiently define the intent of the proposal. Thank you."

"Opposed. States have a reasonable interest in ensuring that public architecture is not appropriated for nonstandard use. Over time, sleeping and camping on many architectural features will cause damage and wear out of conformity with anticipated lifespan. Give the degree of mandatory social support, there is no convincing reason to internationally regulate local architecture."

IC: "But there is reason to internationally regulate the right of an individual to be safe from harm in public, honorable Ambassador. We will rework this proposal to push the issue more towards that of public safety for all. The existence of very adequate and significant social infrastructure for the homeless, however, does not mean that this form of engineering should be fair game, as hostile architecture is capable of making publicly accessible spaces hazardous for anyone, even in a structure's intended use case. Thank you for bringing attention to the infrastructure available to those without shelter, and we hope we can earn your support by shifting the area-of-effect to address in future iterations."

OOC: I will post when a new draft is up

[Bananaistan]

IC: "But there is reason to internationally regulate the right of an individual to be safe from harm in public, honorable Ambassador. We will rework this proposal to push the issue more towards that of public safety for all. The existence of very adequate and significant social infrastructure for the homeless, however, does not mean that this form of engineering should be fair game, as hostile architecture is capable of making publicly accessible spaces hazardous for anyone, even in a structure's intended use case. Thank you for bringing attention to the infrastructure available to those without shelter, and we hope we can earn your support by shifting the area-of-effect to address in future iterations."

"While we're glad that the ban on bedroom doors is being dropped, I question if this new envisaged law is an international issue? If there's pointy concrete on the underpass of the M5 and the N19 in Shrone, what difference does it make to you? If anything, banning such would be a net decrease in safety."

[Tsaivao]

OOC: Second draft is up, please leave your thoughts when you're able, thank you.

IC: "But there is reason to internationally regulate the right of an individual to be safe from harm in public, honorable Ambassador. We will rework this proposal to push the issue more towards that of public safety for all. The existence of very adequate and significant social infrastructure for the homeless, however, does not mean that this form of engineering should be fair game, as hostile architecture is capable of making publicly accessible spaces hazardous for anyone, even in a structure's intended use case. Thank you for bringing attention to the infrastructure available to those without shelter, and we hope we can earn your support by shifting the area-of-effect to address in future iterations."

"While we're glad that the ban on bedroom doors is being dropped, I question if this new envisaged law is an international issue? If there's pointy concrete on the underpass of the M5 and the N19 in Shrone, what difference does it make to you? If anything, banning such would be a net decrease in safety."

"Ambassador, it is of our opinion that there are other, far better and far safer methods of cordoning off sections of public infrastructure that are indeed dangerous. Simple barricades, fencing, even other forms of useful infrastructure such as bike racks are all better alternatives than the equivalent of embedding the concrete with Dragon's Teeth to prevent someone from taking shelter. This proposal does not intend to do away with marking areas which are not to be trespassed upon, it only wishes to get rid of that which can be dangerous. In the case of the aforementioned Dragon's Teeth, they can be harmful to anyone who may trip and fall on top of them. At night, they may be very difficult to actually see, as there is not often a requirement to make these spikes very visible.

"The question of whether or not this is an international issue is of a different concern. To my understanding, it is the responsibility of a nation to protect her own citizens from harm, and actively causing harm under the pretense of protecting them from harm is hypocritical to me. The issue is raised on the basis that public safety be respected by all member nations, and that individuals should be able to avoid injury caused by their own state for solving an issue that should no longer be a threat.

"Besides, urban areas where these tactics are most often use also tend to be destinations of tourism. It would probably not be good for a Vao, who is high off his mind in Shrone, to wander through the night and collapse on top of said row of spikes. It just seems to me like public safety shouldn't attempt to do the opposite in its own name."

[Barfleur]

"I have read the revised proposal, and I appreciate the Ambassador from Tsaivao's thoughtful replies. But I still fail to see how a total ban on hostile architecture in 'publicly-accessible outdoor spaces' is in order. If a municipality in Barfleur, for instance, wished to place spikes on the fence of a public park, while still allowing people to enter that park by means of the normal gate and road, how does the municipal interest in discouraging improper entry into the park (for reasons of public safety, as well as to prevent plants from being trampled) effect any genuine harm upon a person who could just as easily enter the park the proper way?"

[Tsaivao]

"I have read the revised proposal, and I appreciate the Ambassador from Tsaivao's thoughtful replies. But I still fail to see how a total ban on hostile architecture in 'publicly-accessible outdoor spaces' is in order. If a municipality in Barfleur, for instance, wished to place spikes on the fence of a public park, while still allowing people to enter that park by means of the normal gate and road, how does the municipal interest in discouraging improper entry into the park (for reasons of public safety, as well as to prevent plants from being trampled) effect any genuine harm upon a person who could just as easily enter the park the proper way?"

OOC: Just so I understand correctly, your issue is that you'd like spikes to be placed on top of the fence for aesthetics/additional protection? I suppose an exemption could be made for fences and railings, or maybe a more strict definition of what counts publicly accessible outdoor space. I dont think it's unreasonable to want this for fences, but Im unsure of how to word it.

Maybe "Defines 'publicly accessible' as any space outdoors wherein an individual is able tread or cross legally." would work? It wouldn't be legal to climb a park fence, nor would it be expected for someone to sleep on top of a fence. My biggest problem right now is trying to come up with a definition that doesnt invalidate the proposal ("Oh, you can't legally enter this area, therefore the floor is now lava cuz of the definition of publicly accessible")

Edit: Updated to draft 2b, maybe this will cover it. I'll wait a week and see if there are any more responses.

[Barfleur]

"I have read the revised proposal, and I appreciate the Ambassador from Tsaivao's thoughtful replies. But I still fail to see how a total ban on hostile architecture in 'publicly-accessible outdoor spaces' is in order. If a municipality in Barfleur, for instance, wished to place spikes on the fence of a public park, while still allowing people to enter that park by means of the normal gate and road, how does the municipal interest in discouraging improper entry into the park (for reasons of public safety, as well as to prevent plants from being trampled) effect any genuine harm upon a person who could just as easily enter the park the proper way?"

OOC: Just so I understand correctly, your issue is that you'd like spikes to be placed on top of the fence for aesthetics/additional protection? I suppose an exemption could be made for fences and railings, or maybe a more strict definition of what counts publicly accessible outdoor space. I dont think it's unreasonable to want this for fences, but Im unsure of how to word it.

Maybe "Defines 'publicly accessible' as any space outdoors wherein an individual is able tread or cross legally." would work? It wouldn't be legal to climb a park fence, nor would it be expected for someone to sleep on top of a fence. My biggest problem right now is trying to come up with a definition that doesnt invalidate the proposal ("Oh, you can't legally enter this area, therefore the floor is now lava cuz of the definition of publicly accessible")

Edit: Updated to draft 2b, maybe this will cover it. I'll wait a week and see if there are any more responses.

OOC: I'm probably splitting hairs by using this example, and I do apologize for this, but there are non-aesthetical reasons for which hostile architecture may be legitimately put to use in public spaces. Take, for example, a park which has a clearly defined entry/exit gate. Now, there are all sorts of reasons why the municipal authorities might want to prevent people from entering by other means: to deter muggers (especially in places where there are no/fewer cameras), to stop people from trampling on flowers, and to discourage people from, say, climbing a wall where they risk falling and being impaled on a tree branch on the other side. Placing spikes on the park's wall or fence would not meaningfully prevent people from accessing the park, as the main gate remains wide open--it just serves the interest of orderly use of, and care for, public spaces.

[Tsaivao]

OOC: Just so I understand correctly, your issue is that you'd like spikes to be placed on top of the fence for aesthetics/additional protection? I suppose an exemption could be made for fences and railings, or maybe a more strict definition of what counts publicly accessible outdoor space. I dont think it's unreasonable to want this for fences, but Im unsure of how to word it.

Maybe "Defines 'publicly accessible' as any space outdoors wherein an individual is able tread or cross legally." would work? It wouldn't be legal to climb a park fence, nor would it be expected for someone to sleep on top of a fence. My biggest problem right now is trying to come up with a definition that doesnt invalidate the proposal ("Oh, you can't legally enter this area, therefore the floor is now lava cuz of the definition of publicly accessible")

Edit: Updated to draft 2b, maybe this will cover it. I'll wait a week and see if there are any more responses.

OOC: I'm probably splitting hairs by using this example, and I do apologize for this, but there are non-aesthetical reasons for which hostile architecture may be legitimately put to use in public spaces. Take, for example, a park which has a clearly defined entry/exit gate. Now, there are all sorts of reasons why the municipal authorities might want to prevent people from entering by other means: to deter muggers (especially in places where there are no/fewer cameras), to stop people from trampling on flowers, and to discourage people from, say, climbing a wall where they risk falling and being impaled on a tree branch on the other side. Placing spikes on the park's wall or fence would not meaningfully prevent people from accessing the park, as the main gate remains wide open--it just serves the interest of orderly use of, and care for, public spaces.

OOC: I've added a special exemption for barricades and fences in clause 3, though I'm personally a bit uncertain about it myself. I do acknowledge that there is a need to make the distinction for fences as you say, but to be honest I'm not quite sure how to phrase it legally in a way that satisfies me or the intention of the proposal.