[Draft] "General rules for Associations" to replace GA#550

[Brezzia]

Following requests from some Ambassadors after this delegation submitted a draft to repeal GA#550 "Freedom of association", the Brezzian delegation submitted to this Assembly a draft to replace GA#550 "Freedom of association".
This proposal tries to cover GA#550's flaws:

• clause 3 introduces the criteria to identify dangerous associations that must be prohibited and clause 6 encourages international cooperation to do so, while GA#550 leaves single nations to decide "what's good and what's bad",
• clause 4 allows the imposition of monetary penalties on associations and prohibits the prosecution of members not involved the illegal activities of their association, while GA#550 allows the "incarceration of an association", possibly including innocent members;
• clause 5 allows the prevention of conflicts of interest, while GA#550 grants organization to select their members in ALL, even if that leads to conflict of interest or discrimination.

However, our priority is the repeal of GA#550 than its replacement.

"General rules for Associations"

The General Assembly,

Distinguishing the association from the assembly in that the former has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.),

Hereby:

1. Mandates that Member Nations guarantee freedom of association to their citizens and residents, recognizing it as
   
   1. the freedom to form an association,
   2. the freedom to join or not to join an association, and
   3. the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time,
2. Decrees that Member Nations may not prosecute individuals for sole participation or non-participation in an association,
   
3. Requires that Member Nations prohibit associations that promote or pursue:
   
   1. the non-recognition of civil and political rights on the basis of distinctions of sex, ethnicity, language, religion, political opinions, personal and social conditions,
   2. the infliction of physical and psychological harm among their members or towards non-members,
   3. the perpetration of illegal transportation of objects, substances, information, animals or people for profit, or
   4. the implementation of political aims through actions of a military or terrorist nature,
4. Clarifies that the provisions of clause 3 do not prohibit the imposition of monetary penalties on associations that violate local laws, and do not allow the prosecution of members if they have not been directly or indirectly involved in the illegal activities of their own association and if the denunciation of these activities could cause real dangers to the individual and his affections,
   
5. Allows Member Nations to prevent the participation of public officials, members of public administration, members of law enforcement and the armed forces, and the judiciary in associations where this may give rise to conflicts of interest,
   
6. Encourages Member Nations to cooperate in identifying the associations referred to in clause 3.

Draft 3
The General Assembly,

Recognizing the freedom of association as the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time,

Distinguishing the association from the assembly in that the former has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.),

Decrees that:

1. Member Nations must guarantee freedom of association to their citizens and residents,
2. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals for sole participation or non-participation in an association,
3. Member Nations may prohibit and order the dissolution of associations that promote or pursue:
   
   1. the non-recognition of civil and political rights on the basis of distinctions of sex, ethnicity, language, religion, political opinions, personal and social conditions,
   2. the infliction of physical and psychological harm among their members or towards non-members,
   3. the violation of international and local laws by their members,
   4. the implementation of political aims through actions of a military or terrorist nature,
4. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals who are members of the associations referred to in clauses 3 if they have not been involved in criminal activities and the denunciation of these activities could cause real dangers to the individual and his affections,
5. Member Nations may prevent the participation of public officials, members of the public administration, the law enforcement and the armed forces in associations where this may give rise to conflicts of interest,
6. Member Nations must respect international laws and the provisions referred to in clause 1 and 2 in the implementation of the provisions referred to in clauses 3, 4 and 5.

Draft 2
The General Assembly,

Recognizing the freedom of association as the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time,

Distinguishing the association from the assembly in that the former has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.),

Decrees that:

1. Member Nations have to guarantee freedom of association to their citizens and residents,
2. Member Nations may enact measures to prevent freedom of association from clashing with other fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and by the Nations themselves,
3. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals for sole participation or non-participation in an association,
4. Member Nations may prohibit and order the dissolution of associations that promote or pursue:
   
   1. the violation the fundamental freedoms among their members or towards non-members,
   2. the infliction of physical and psychological harm among their members or towards non-members,
   3. the discrimination among their own members or towards non-members,
   4. the violation of international and local laws by their members,
   5. the implementation of political aims through actions of a military or terrorist nature,
5. Member Nations may adopt particular provisions regulating certain types of associations, in particular:
   
   1. secret associations, whether they act in secret or that they keep the identities of their members secret,
   2. associations in which the participation of public officials, members of the public administration, law enforcement and armed forces may lead to conflicts of interest for them,
6. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals who are members of the associations referred to in clauses 4 and 5 if they have not been directly involved in criminal activities and the denunciation of these activities could cause real dangers to the individual and his affections,
7. Member Nations must guarantee the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and respect international laws and the provisions referred to in clause 1 and 3 in the implementation of the provisions referred to in clauses 2, 4, 5 and 6.

Draft 1
The General Assembly,
Recognizing the freedom of association as the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time,

Distinguishing the association from the assembly in that the former has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.),

Decrees that:

1. Member Nations have to guarantee freedom of association to their citizens and residents,
2. Member Nations may enact measures to prevent freedom of association from clashing with other fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and by the Nations themselves,
3. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals for sole participation or non-participation in an association,
4. Member Nations may prohibit and order the dissolution of associations that promote or pursue:
   
   1. the violation the fundamental freedoms among their members or towards non-members,
   2. the infliction of physical and psychological harm among their members or towards non-members,
   3. the discrimination among their own members or towards non-members,
   4. the violation of international and local laws by their members,
   5. the implementation of political aims through actions of a military or terrorist nature,
5. Membre Nations with a democratic regime that guarantees the freedom of association may:
   
   1. prohibit secret associations, which, in the aforementioned type of regime, can only have illicit purposes,
   2. prohibit public officials, members of the public administration, law enforcement, armed forces and the judiciary from participating in associations whose membership could lead to a conflict of interest for them,
6. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals who are members of the associations referred to in clauses 4 and 5 if they have not been directly involved in criminal activities and the denunciation of these activities could cause real dangers to the individual and his affections,
7. Member Nations must guarantee the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and respect international laws in the implementation of the provisions referred to in clauses 4, 5 and 6.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is a draft to replace GA#550 "Freedom of association"

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the freedom of association as the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time,

Distinguishing the association from the assembly in that the former has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.),

Decrees that:

1. Member Nations have to guarantee freedom of association to their citizens and residents,
2. Member Nations may enact measures to prevent freedom of association from clashing with other fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and by the Nations themselves,
3. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals for sole participation or non-participation in an association,
4. Member Nations may prohibit and order the dissolution of associations that promote or pursue:
   
   1. the violation the fundamental freedoms among their members or towards non-members,
   2. the infliction of physical and psychological harm among their members or towards non-members,
   3. the discrimination among their own members or towards non-members,
   4. the violation of international and local laws by their members,
   5. the implementation of political aims through actions of a military or terrorist nature,
5. Membre Nations with a democratic regime that guarantees the freedom of association may:
   
   1. prohibit secret associations, which, in the aforementioned type of regime, can only have illicit purposes,
   2. prohibit public officials, members of the public administration, law enforcement, armed forces and the judiciary from participating in associations whose membership could lead to a conflict of interest for them,
6. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals who are members of the associations referred to in clauses 4 and 5 if they have not been directly involved in criminal activities and the denunciation of these activities could cause real dangers to the individual and his affections,
7. Member Nations must guarantee the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and respect international laws in the implementation of the provisions referred to in clauses 4, 5 and 6.

A few remarks:

What are these fundamental freedoms which your proposal mostly stakes its reputation on? If I'm a socialist and I say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to preserve the freedom of the proletariat against the threat of bourgeois imperialists and that limiting the ability of the lumpenproletariat to assemble into non-approved counter-revolutionary trade union associations is necessary to protect their freedom in the long run, would not that be permitted under reasonable nation theory?

Would not any club or social fraternity necessarily discriminate against non-members? If I am a member of a local swimming pool and only I and other members are allowed to use the pool, would it not be discriminatory towards non-members to deny their entry?

Why are democratic nations permitted to prohibit secret associations? Moreover, why do you make the claim that secret ass'ns 'in [democratic regimes] can only have illicit purposes'? Does the Skull and Bones society at Yale really so threaten the stability of the American republic? Does the Serbian Black Hand really threaten Serbia so much that it needs to be prohibited (though, in some views, starting a war that kills a quarter of Serbians might not have been the greatest idea in the history of the world...)?

[Brezzia]

This is a draft to replace GA#550 "Freedom of association"

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the freedom of association as the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time,

Distinguishing the association from the assembly in that the former has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.),

Decrees that:

1. Member Nations have to guarantee freedom of association to their citizens and residents,
2. Member Nations may enact measures to prevent freedom of association from clashing with other fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and by the Nations themselves,
3. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals for sole participation or non-participation in an association,
4. Member Nations may prohibit and order the dissolution of associations that promote or pursue:
   
   1. the violation the fundamental freedoms among their members or towards non-members,
   2. the infliction of physical and psychological harm among their members or towards non-members,
   3. the discrimination among their own members or towards non-members,
   4. the violation of international and local laws by their members,
   5. the implementation of political aims through actions of a military or terrorist nature,
5. Membre Nations with a democratic regime that guarantees the freedom of association may:
   
   1. prohibit secret associations, which, in the aforementioned type of regime, can only have illicit purposes,
   2. prohibit public officials, members of the public administration, law enforcement, armed forces and the judiciary from participating in associations whose membership could lead to a conflict of interest for them,
6. Member Nations may not prosecute individuals who are members of the associations referred to in clauses 4 and 5 if they have not been directly involved in criminal activities and the denunciation of these activities could cause real dangers to the individual and his affections,
7. Member Nations must guarantee the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the WA and respect international laws in the implementation of the provisions referred to in clauses 4, 5 and 6.

A few remarks:

What are these fundamental freedoms which your proposal mostly stakes its reputation on? If I'm a socialist and I say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to preserve the freedom of the proletariat against the threat of bourgeois imperialists and that limiting the ability of the lumpenproletariat to assemble into non-approved counter-revolutionary trade union associations is necessary to protect their freedom in the long run, would not that be permitted under reasonable nation theory?

Would not any club or social fraternity necessarily discriminate against non-members? If I am a member of a local swimming pool and only I and other members are allowed to use the pool, would it not be discriminatory towards non-members to deny their entry?

Why are democratic nations permitted to prohibit secret associations? Moreover, why do you make the claim that secret ass'ns 'in [democratic regimes] can only have illicit purposes'? Does the Skull and Bones society at Yale really so threaten the stability of the American republic? Does the Serbian Black Hand really threaten Serbia so much that it needs to be prohibited (though, in some views, starting a war that kills a quarter of Serbians might not have been the greatest idea in the history of the world...)?

These fundamental freedoms would be the ones recognized by WA and the Nations. Clause 2 allows Nations to balance these freedoms. As a communist (I don't know if every socialist believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat) you could limit freedom of association to preserve the freedom of proletariat to not be exploited and to own the means of production.

Can the addition "discrimination, that is unjustified distinctions between human beings" solve the problem you pose?

Many real countries doesn't allow secret association because they argue that in a rule of law there is no need to pursue something by hiding to protect oneself, and that if you do that, maybe you have not good intentions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

These fundamental freedoms would be the ones recognized by WA and the Nations. Clause 2 allows Nations to balance these freedoms. As a communist (I don't know if every socialist believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat) you could limit freedom of association to preserve the freedom of proletariat to not be exploited and to own the means of production.

Let's say I'm a Stalinist who wants to defeat some other portion of the party which is organising sympathetic workers in a certain grain-producing province southwest of the capital against my faction in the party. It seems obvious to me that a nation which wants to do this would just cling to the interpretation I gave earlier and read 'fundamental freedoms' extremely broadly to mean exactly what they want it to mean (ie the splitters, all heretofore committed revolutionaries, were all actually plotting with the tsar to assassinate our glorious leaders Schlenin and Schtalin since 1909!).

Can the addition "discrimination, that is an unjustified distinction distinctions between human beings" solve the problem you pose?

What makes something unjustified? If the justification is 'Black people are inferior because they have lower IQ scores' that doesn't sound prima facie acceptable to me. A nation which wants to do discrimination though, will find that eminently justified for discrimination.

Many real countries doesn't allow secret association because they argue that in a rule of law there is no need to pursue something by hiding to protect oneself, and that if you do that, maybe you have not good intentions.

Okay? Just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it's okay. The PRC puts Uyghurs in camps. Should we write proposals allowing nations to do such things?

[Brezzia]

These fundamental freedoms would be the ones recognized by WA and the Nations. Clause 2 allows Nations to balance these freedoms. As a communist (I don't know if every socialist believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat) you could limit freedom of association to preserve the freedom of proletariat to not be exploited and to own the means of production.

Let's say I'm a Stalinist who wants to defeat some other portion of the party which is organising sympathetic workers in a certain grain-producing province southwest of the capital against my faction in the party. It seems obvious to me that a nation which wants to do this would just cling to the interpretation I gave earlier and read 'fundamental freedoms' extremely broadly to mean exactly what they want it to mean (ie the splitters, all heretofore committed revolutionaries, were all actually plotting with the tsar to assassinate our glorious leaders Schlenin and Schtalin since 1909!).

Can the addition "discrimination, that is an unjustified distinction distinctions between human beings" solve the problem you pose?

What makes something unjustified? If the justification is 'Black people are inferior because they have lower IQ scores' that doesn't sound prima facie acceptable to me. A nation which wants to do discrimination though, will find that eminently justified for discrimination.

Many real countries doesn't allow secret association because they argue that in a rule of law there is no need to pursue something by hiding to protect oneself, and that if you do that, maybe you have not good intentions.

Okay? Just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it's okay. The PRC puts Uyghurs in camps. Should we write proposals allowing nations to do such things?

If someone approaches me and I kill, I can say that they wanted to murder me, then there will be a process that will decide on my behavior. I don't know if there is an international court of WA. The Soviet Union was not part of the League of Nations and I don't know if it judged the internal affairs of countries.

Do I really need to define discrimination? If a techer says "today we talk about discrimination", do not the kids understand? If a rich communist and satanist boy denounced the "Association of Sisters of Charity against Bolshevism", would a judge declare that these nuns are discriminating against him because he is not a poor reactionary and devout Catholic woman?

It's not something that has happened in the past. Some Nations still prohibit secret associations and they are not considered "rogue state" of part of the "axis of evil". Uyghurs are not an association and I don't the link with this proposal.

[Ardiveds]

It's not something that has happened in the past. Some Nations still prohibit secret associations and they are not considered "rogue state" of part of the "axis of evil". Uyghurs are not an association and I don't the link with this proposal.

OOC: I think he is asking you to consider the question of prohibiting secret associations based in it's merits and demerits rather than just because countries do it now.

[Brezzia]

It's not something that has happened in the past. Some Nations still prohibit secret associations and they are not considered "rogue state" of part of the "axis of evil". Uyghurs are not an association and I don't the link with this proposal.

OOC: I think he is asking you to consider the question of prohibiting secret associations based in it's merits and demerits rather than just because countries do it now.

I don't think a Nations can evaluate the merits and demerits of a secret association because this association will keep them secret. What is its aim? Does it really exist? Who are its members? If the Nation applies the provisions of clauses 3, 6 and 7, why do not they want declare to belong to a particular organization? Allowing secret associations to legally exist could also fuel odd conspiracy theories that harm a country's credibility among its population and trust in its institutions.

[Boston Castle]

OOC: I think he is asking you to consider the question of prohibiting secret associations based in it's merits and demerits rather than just because countries do it now.

I don't think a Nations can evaluate the merits and demerits of a secret association because this association will keep them secret. What is its aim? Does it really exist? Who are its members? If the Nation applies the provisions of clauses 3, 6 and 7, why do not they want declare to belong to a particular organization? Allowing secret associations to legally exist could also fuel odd conspiracy theories that harm a country's credibility among its population and trust in its institutions.

Going to put this out there, but it's quite illogical to say "yeah, we're going to guarantee your right to associate with this group" but also "hey we need to know your membership, so you can't be secret!"

[Brezzia]

I don't think a Nations can evaluate the merits and demerits of a secret association because this association will keep them secret. What is its aim? Does it really exist? Who are its members? If the Nation applies the provisions of clauses 3, 6 and 7, why do not they want declare to belong to a particular organization? Allowing secret associations to legally exist could also fuel odd conspiracy theories that harm a country's credibility among its population and trust in its institutions.

Going to put this out there, but it's quite illogical to say "yeah, we're going to guarantee your right to associate with this group" but also "hey we need to know your membership, so you can't be secret!"

The freedom of association is the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time. How could a Nation guarantee you the freedom to withdraw from an association if it doesn't know its existence or that you are member?

It seems also that there is a confusion between the freedom of association and the freedom of assembly, that is the freedom to meet people even without an organization.

It is normal to have resentment towards those who criticize your hard work, but I do not understand the sarcastic tone of some answers. I'm not the only one who has doubts about this resolution, and I don't think I'm the only one who has come close to editing resolutions through a resolution that he believes is incorrect. I could have directly tried to repeal the resolution, but I saw the forum and decided to put my draft here for help, which I received but along with angry questions and allusions about being a socialist nation. I would genuinely like to contribute to WA because I am fascinated by the ability of this community to create such solute resolutions.

[Uan aa Boa]

The freedom of association is the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time. How could a Nation guarantee you the freedom to withdraw from an association if it doesn't know its existence or that you are member?

In the same way that you can have freedom of speech without the government knowing everything you say. Freedom of association means that the government doesn't prevent you from choosing who you associate with or punish you for your associations. This can happen perfectly well without the government knowing about every organisation and its members. If someone is in some way prevented from leaving a secret society then how is this happening? Threats, blackmail, intimidation? Existing laws are almost certainly being broken without this resolution being required.

Requiring the government to keep a record of who is a member of every book club, internet forum, prayer group, amateur sport league, fan club etc etc is far more frightening than any dangers lurking in GA#550.

[Brezzia]

The freedom of association is the freedom to form an association, the freedom to join or not to join an association and the freedom to withdraw from an association at any time. How could a Nation guarantee you the freedom to withdraw from an association if it doesn't know its existence or that you are member?

In the same way that you can have freedom of speech without the government knowing everything you say. Freedom of association means that the government doesn't prevent you from choosing who you associate with or punish you for your associations. This can happen perfectly well without the government knowing about every organisation and its members. If someone is in some way prevented from leaving a secret society then how is this happening? Threats, blackmail, intimidation? Existing laws are almost certainly being broken without this resolution being required.

Requiring the government to keep a record of who is a member of every book club, internet forum, prayer group, amateur sport league, fan club etc etc is far more frightening than any dangers lurking in GA#550.

How about an association that requires a month payment to be a member. They take the payment directly from your bank account. To enter to this organization you signed a contract that states that your request to leave the association must be accepted by the association organizers. GA#550 1a fully delegats the application of the right to freedom of association to organizations. Is it not important to guarantee the freedom to withdraw an association? They can delay your withdraw, so is it not important to be able to withdraw at any moment you want?

Freedom of speech can have similarities with freedom of assembly. But freedom of association is more similar to freedom of press. Freedom of association is a specific part of freedom of assembly, likely freedom of press is a specific part of freedom of speech. Allowing you say everything you want without the government knowing everything you say is freedom of speech but not freedom of press, like allowing you meet everyone you want without the government knowing everyone you meet is freedom of assembly but not freedom of association. Book clubs, amateur sport leagues and fan clubs already keep a record of their members. Internet forums and prayer groups are protected by freedom of assembly, not by freedom of association, like I am protected by freedom of speech when I talk to my father and not by freedom of press.

Some government requires that journalists organizes themselves in self-managed associations that guarantee its members are following professional ethics (same for lawyers and physicians). You can let associations to organize themselves together because some of them oppose each other (political associations, trade unions and associations of employers). Therefore, the parliament, which is a group of democratically elected people representing a Nation, need to be able to decide about associations. The problem with GA#550 1a is that it does not allows national regulation about association.

[Uan aa Boa]

How about an association that requires a month payment to be a member. They take the payment directly from your bank account. To enter to this organization you signed a contract that states that your request to leave the association must be accepted by the association organizers. GA#550 1a fully delegats the application of the right to freedom of association to organizations. Is it not important to guarantee the freedom to withdraw an association? They can delay your withdraw, so is it not important to be able to withdraw at any moment you want?

Can citizens in this nation not unilaterally cancel regular payments coming out of their bank accounts? Does no system yet exist for dealing with non-adherence to contracts? Or do we now need an Orwellian registry not only of group memberships but of all contracts any citizen has entered into? And what kind of secret society takes payment by monthly direct debit and has agreed terms of service?

Incidentally, that's not what GA#550 1a does. It stipulates that individuals don't have the right to associate with groups that don't want them. It allows organisations to have eligibility requirements for membership and to expel people.

The problem with GA#550 1a is that it does not allows national regulation about association.

I think the concerns people have about GA#550 are that it permits too much government intervention, not too little.

[Brezzia]

How about an association that requires a month payment to be a member. They take the payment directly from your bank account. To enter to this organization you signed a contract that states that your request to leave the association must be accepted by the association organizers. GA#550 1a fully delegats the application of the right to freedom of association to organizations. Is it not important to guarantee the freedom to withdraw an association? They can delay your withdraw, so is it not important to be able to withdraw at any moment you want?

Can citizens in this nation not unilaterally cancel regular payments coming out of their bank accounts? Does no system yet exist for dealing with non-adherence to contracts? Or do we now need an Orwellian registry not only of group memberships but of all contracts any citizen has entered into? And what kind of secret society takes payment by monthly direct debit and has agreed terms of service?

Incidentally, that's not what GA#550 1a does. It stipulates that individuals don't have the right to associate with groups that don't want them. It allows organisations to have eligibility requirements for membership and to expel people.

The problem with GA#550 1a is that it does not allows national regulation about association.

I think the concerns people have about GA#550 are that it permits too much government intervention, not too little.

What kind of association need to be secret? What are their lecit purposes that its members want to keep secret? If you have a lecit purposes, why do you need to keep secret? If you want to meet people, why do you need an association? Associations keep record of their members by themselves, why do you need that to meet people, even regularly? If you just want to meet people, why is not freedom of assembly enough? Associations can expell their members, why can't you purpose them for unjustly expell you? They will be find guilty for other crimes, but why unjustly expelling a member from an association should not be an aggravating circumstance of a crime or a crime itself?

The concerns I have about GA#550 are that it permits too much government intervention in national security and too little in conflict of interest. Is not 5b "prohibit public officials, members of the public administration, law enforcement, armed forces and the judiciary from participating in associations whose membership could lead to a conflict of interest for them" a national security issue and a social, political and economic issue? If Nations cannot ask record to association, how can they know if there is a conflict of interest? Even in Nations that don't allow secret association, they need to ask associations to receive their records. If they disagree, there will be a trial. GA#550 allows governments to act in national security issue and crime, but does not allow it in social, political and economic issue. This resolution doesn't prohibit secret association, but allows governments to do that and to not do that.

Clause 6 prevents governments from persecuting people for just being in a secret association. However, I understand that secret are big concern (I do not know why) and i'll try to improve that.

[Uan aa Boa]

What kind of association need to be secret? What are their lecit purposes that its members want to keep secret? If you have a lecit purposes, why do you need to keep secret? If you want to meet people, why do you need an association? Associations keep record of their members by themselves, why do you need that to meet people, even regularly? If you just want to meet people, why is not freedom of assembly enough? Associations can expell their members, why can't you purpose them for unjustly expell you? They will be find guilty for other crimes, but why unjustly expelling a member from an association should not be an aggravating circumstance of a crime or a crime itself?

There's a difference between things that are secret and things that are simply not the government's concern. Why shouldn't my stamp collecting club keep a record of contact details so it can organise events and send out a newsletter? And why should it then be required to give that list to the government? Or face the prospect of international legal action over that unfortunate incident where we revoked Bob's membership because he must have known that penny black he sold to Steve wasn't genuine? If you can't see that this kind of state intrusion into the minutiae of life is a fundamental violation of civil liberties because "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" then I can't really help you.

Is not 5b "prohibit public officials, members of the public administration, law enforcement, armed forces and the judiciary from participating in associations whose membership could lead to a conflict of interest for them" a national security issue and a social, political and economic issue? If Nations cannot ask record to association, how can they know if there is a conflict of interest? Even in Nations that don't allow secret association, they need to ask associations to receive their records. If they disagree, there will be a trial.

Conflicts of interest can arise from other things than membership of organisations. The way the UK parliament handles this is to have a register of members' interests where they record anything that might raise an issue. That's memberships, but it's also the fact that a Russian oligarch gave me a free holiday. The register only records what I choose to add, but if I award a major public contract to someone who turns out to be my old flatmate and godfather to my children it will be all the more telling that I didn't mention our connection in the register.

It's hard to identify what memberships are problematic because it's not so much the membership itself as my conduct that can cause problems. There's no inherent harm in my being a member of the Wessex Old Farts Dining Society if I behave with integrity. I might intervene to approve planning applications for a business owned by another member, but if I don't do anything like that I don't see why I should be barred from my dinner.

And of course to deal with these issues by expecting every organisation in the country to divulge its membership records to the government is not only ineffective, it's a completely disproportionate overreaction.

[Brezzia]

There's a difference between things that are secret and things that are simply not the government's concern. Why shouldn't my stamp collecting club keep a record of contact details so it can organise events and send out a newsletter? And why should it then be required to give that list to the government? Or face the prospect of international legal action over that unfortunate incident where we revoked Bob's membership because he must have known that penny black he sold to Steve wasn't genuine? If you can't see that this kind of state intrusion into the minutiae of life is a fundamental violation of civil liberties because "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" then I can't really help you.

I do not understand why you should consider a stamp collecting club an association. An association has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.). Hobby club do not need to be an association. An association is an organized group of people with an aim. A group of people who share and enjoy their time should not be considered an association and their meeting are protected by freedom of assembly. The difference is little but important.

Conflicts of interest can arise from other things than membership of organisations. The way the UK parliament handles this is to have a register of members' interests where they record anything that might raise an issue. That's memberships, but it's also the fact that a Russian oligarch gave me a free holiday. The register only records what I choose to add, but if I award a major public contract to someone who turns out to be my old flatmate and godfather to my children it will be all the more telling that I didn't mention our connection in the register.

It's hard to identify what memberships are problematic because it's not so much the membership itself as my conduct that can cause problems. There's no inherent harm in my being a member of the Wessex Old Farts Dining Society if I behave with integrity. I might intervene to approve planning applications for a business owned by another member, but if I don't do anything like that I don't see why I should be barred from my dinner.

And of course to deal with these issues by expecting every organisation in the country to divulge its membership records to the government is not only ineffective, it's a completely disproportionate overreaction.

Some conflict of interest are easy to be see. The categories that I mentioned will have a conflict of interest if the join a political association with the aim of emproving the condition of a part of the population or they could simply use their position to make electoral propaganda, gaining advantages against others candidates, which would not be illegal but will altered the elections. If the join a religious association with the aim of visiting holy sites there will not any conflict of interest obviously.

[Uan aa Boa]

I do not understand why you should consider a stamp collecting club an association. An association has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.). Hobby club do not need to be an association. An association is an organized group of people with an aim. A group of people who share and enjoy their time should not be considered an association and their meeting are protected by freedom of assembly. The difference is little but important.

If my stamp collecting club has been running for 5 years and I have made close friends there (permanent bond is a strong requirement, you'll have to wait literally the rest of my life to find out if that's actually the case), and the common recreational purpose we pursue is the collecting of stamps, then it meets the definition of an association that you've given.

Of course what we really want freedom of association law to do is protect political protest and dissent, but that often involves single issue groups that are inherently short-term. For example, Brexit created many short-lived organisations both in favour and against, and for the most part these have now come to an end. If I want to organise a campaign against the building of a road through my local park that's not going to be "stable and lasting." Are you confident that GA#537 gives enough protection to this kind of political activity to deliberately (and somewhat arbitrarily) exclude it from this resolution?

Association and assembly are closely related rights, but in most usage assembly is about gatherings that occur at a particular time while association is about organisations.

[Brezzia]

I do not understand why you should consider a stamp collecting club an association. An association has a stable and lasting organization, a permanent bond between the members, a common purpose to pursue (which can be political, religious, cultural, recreational, etc.). Hobby club do not need to be an association. An association is an organized group of people with an aim. A group of people who share and enjoy their time should not be considered an association and their meeting are protected by freedom of assembly. The difference is little but important.

If my stamp collecting club has been running for 5 years and I have made close friends there (permanent bond is a strong requirement, you'll have to wait literally the rest of my life to find out if that's actually the case), and the common recreational purpose we pursue is the collecting of stamps, then it meets the definition of an association that you've given.

Of course what we really want freedom of association law to do is protect political protest and dissent, but that often involves single issue groups that are inherently short-term. For example, Brexit created many short-lived organisations both in favour and against, and for the most part these have now come to an end. If I want to organise a campaign against the building of a road through my local park that's not going to be "stable and lasting." Are you confident that GA#537 gives enough protection to this kind of political activity to deliberately (and somewhat arbitrarily) exclude it from this resolution?

Association and assembly are closely related rights, but in most usage assembly is about gatherings that occur at a particular time while association is about organisations.

If your club doesn't have an internal organization it is not an association. If you and your friends meet each other in your living room and keep contact with a WhatsApp chat, you don't have a stable and lasting organization. You just meet each other to share a common passion.
But if you collect some money, nomenee a tresaurer, rent an office and give consulance about philately and try to welcome new people in the wonderful world of stamp collection, congratulations on your new association!

The difference between short and long-term is more not-lasting and lasting. If you and some people create an a philatelic association the first you meet each other but you'll never see again, you didn't make an association, you made an assembly to try to make an association. If you made an association against a public road, you meet everyday for week and you reach your purpose, your association won its struggle. I am not British but I remember that the campaign lasted some months, so its a long time.

I think we agree about assembly and association being closely related rights and having some little differences. In my opinion, the difference you mentioned is not only in most usage, but it is the main difference between assembly and association and a correct resolution should include this difference.

[Brezzia]

Draft 3 contains:

• Removal of references to fundamental freedoms in clause 2 (removed entirely) and clause 7 (now clause 6),
• Reformulation of clauses 3.a and 3.c in the new clause 2.a,
• Removal of references to secret associations in clause 5.

[Hulldom]

And once again pointing out that I (see sig) will counter-campaign against any and all attempts to repeal this.

[Brezzia]

And once again pointing out that I (see sig) will counter-campaign against any and all attempts to repeal this.

That's how democracy works

[Greater Cesnica]

Worry about fixing the spelling and grammar errors in your repeal draft first.

[Jedinsto]

Also, you're going to need a real title. If you submitted it with the current title, that would be plagiarism.

[Brezzia]

Worry about fixing the spelling and grammar errors in your repeal draft first.

I will. Sorry, I'm not an native English speaker and I'm not very fluent.

[Greater Cesnica]

Worry about fixing the spelling and grammar errors in your repeal draft first.

I will. Sorry, I'm not an native English speaker and I'm not very fluent.

That's fair. I'll reply in that thread with a version of the draft with those errors fixed.

[Brezzia]

I will. Sorry, I'm not an native English speaker and I'm not very fluent.

That's fair. I'll reply in that thread with a version of the draft with those errors fixed.

Thank you!