[DEFEATED] Freedom of Opinion and Belief

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 23rd and 27th of October, 2023.
It was defeated by a margin of 9,246 votes (about 72%) to 3,626 (about 28%).

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Civil Rights Board.
NOTE 3: at 1115 BST on the 10th of October 2023, the third iteration of this proposal reached quorum with Haveropinogiestan's approval, the 56th all told. At 1943 BST that day, this proposal returned to quorum with Krankenwagen's approval, also the 56th all told.
NOTE 2: the second iteration of this proposal failed to reach quorum naturally between the 29th of September and the 3rd of October 2023
NOTE: at 0048 BST on the 6th of August 2021, the first iteration of this proposal reached quorum with Misted Lake's approval, the 53rd all told.

---

Character count: 523
Word count: 80

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Despite the best attempts of... Al Sullivan, I think it was, the World Assembly has not protected freedom of conscience in any form since Access to Science in Schools - which provided that "a person can be exposed to scientific theories and reject them altogether for itself, without any negative consequences whatsoever in what regards a person’s public life" - was repealed during Tinhamptonian stardate August 2013.

Article a(i) reflects that freedom of opinion is absolute, which the Human Rights Committee has accepted in its General Comment 34 ("9. Paragraph 1 of article 19 requires protection of the right to hold opinions without interference. This is a right to which the Covenant permits no exception or restriction. Freedom of opinion extends to the right to change an opinion whenever and for whatever reason a person so freely chooses. [...] All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature. It is incompatible with paragraph 1 to criminalize the holding of an opinion... 10. Any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited. Freedom to express one’s opinion necessarily includes freedom not to express one’s opinion."); Article c naturally follows from this and GA#436.
Article a(ii) is inspired by HR#115 "Freedom of Conscience" ("we hereby: 1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned [for] their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining and PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future") and the now-perenially-proposed Korematsu-Takai Civil Liberties Protection Act ("No individual may be imprisoned or otherwise detained based solely on an actual or perceived protected characteristic of the individual... the term ‘protected characteristic’ includes each of the following: (A) Race. (B) Ethnicity. (C) National origin. (D) Religion. (E) Sex. (F) Gender identity. (G) Sexual orientation. (H) Disability....").
Article a(iii) has its roots in certain American proposals to ban or at least disincentivise the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools - see, for instance, New Hampshire HB 544 ("The state of New Hampshire shall not teach, instruct, or train any employee, contractor, staff member, student, or any other individual or group, to adopt or believe any of the divisive concepts defined in RSA 10-C:1, II") or Chip Roy's federally proposed CRT Act ("The term ‘‘promote’’, when used with respect to a race-based theory described in subsection (c), means... (C) to compel students to profess a belief in such theories.") I added Article d Article c later to clarify that this is the only regulation of speech directly imposed by my proposal.
Article b in its entirety is inspired by HR#88 "Fairness and Equality" ("In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof [or] with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).")
Article 21 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights forbids discrimination on the grounds of "political or any other opinion."

Freedom of Opinion and Belief
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from criminalising the holding of any opinion (even when its expression would constitute a crime) and the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic,
2. prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against any person or group due to their holding of any opinion, and
3. clarifies that this resolution does not cover the actual expression of opinions or other speech.

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from criminalising:
   
   1. the holding of any opinion, even when expressing that opinion would constitute a crime, and
   2. the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic,
2. prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against:
   
   1. any person or group due to their holding of any opinion or their possession or lack of any arbitrary and reductive characteristics, and
   2. any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or else required by resolution, to ensure that they comply with international law) or beliefs, and
3. clarifies that this resolution does not regulate the actual expression of opinions or other speech.

Freedom of Opinion and Belief
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from:
   
   1. criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,
   2. criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic, and
   3. requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs, except where such a requirement is necessary to ensure that the proceedings of judicial and legislative mechanisms are swift and truthful, or is an oath of loyalty to the respective member state that must be sworn to acquire its nationality or citizenship,
2. prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against:
   
   1. any person or group due to their holding (not necessarily expression) of any opinions or beliefs, nor any arbitrary and reductive characteristics they may possess, and
   2. any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs, and
3. clarifies that no part of this resolution other than Article a(iii) directly regulates the actual expression of opinions or other speech.

Freedom of Opinion and Belief
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from:
   
   1. criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,
   2. criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic, and
   3. requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs,
2. prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against:
   
   1. any person or group due to their holding (not necessarily expression) of any opinions or beliefs, nor any arbitrary and reductive characteristics they may possess, and
   2. any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,
3. requires members to permit the holding and expression of facts, however inconvenient, by their inhabitants, and
4. clarifies that no part of this resolution other than Article a(iii) directly regulates the actual expression of opinions or other speech.

[Bears Armed]

"By the wording of this text, it seems that member nations would still be allowed to order their people to publicly denounce opinions or beliefs, and to criminalize a refusal to comply with those orders: Is that an intentional feature of the proposal?

"Ur'rmm, and are some of your references in the accompanying justificatory passage actually to details in the 'RealLife' game?"

Artorrios O SouthWoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission at the W. A. .

[Tinhampton]

Smith: "Denouncing" a particular opinion is in itself an expression of another opinion. The relevant word in Article a(iii) has been changed from "ordering" to "requiring" nonetheless.
About that other thing... I'll have to check with Lydia about that, she's more obsessed with RealWorldStates than I am. We do not intend to expand the actual preamble beyond its current assertation that "brainwashing is bad and wrong."

[Hulldom]

"By the wording of this text, it seems that member nations would still be allowed to order their people to publicly denounce opinions or beliefs, and to criminalize a refusal to comply with those orders: Is that an intentional feature of the proposal?

"Ur'rmm, and are some of your references in the accompanying justificatory passage actually to details in the 'RealLife' game?"

Artorrios O SouthWoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission at the W. A. .

“My reading of clause (b) would seem to signify that this would have to be a replacement for Protection of Apostates without falling into some duplication problems.”

[Tinhampton]

Smith: The World Assembly is a secular institution. How, then, does Article b run into problems with vyn Nysen's excellent resolution on apostasy?

[WayNeacTia]

Smith: The World Assembly is a secular institution. How, then, does Article b run into problems with vyn Nysen's excellent resolution on apostasy?

Since when is the WA a secular institution? Did I miss a memo?

[Tinhampton]

Smith: The World Assembly is a secular institution. How, then, does Article b run into problems with vyn Nysen's excellent resolution on apostasy?

Since when is the WA a secular institution? Did I miss a memo?

Since when has the WA had an official religion?

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: Point Tinhampton here. The WA has operated implicitly in a secular manner where it considered religion.

[Tinhampton]

Bump for comments... and further debate on the above comments

[Wallenburg]

"No democracy can survive open, unopposed, and organized expression of anti-democratic beliefs. No civil society can survive open, unopposed, and organized expression of uncivil beliefs. The function of this proposal is to facilitate violent and insurrectionary ideology."

[Tinhampton]

Smith: What insurrection?

[Barfleur]

"No democracy can survive open, unopposed, and organized expression of anti-democratic beliefs. No civil society can survive open, unopposed, and organized expression of uncivil beliefs. The function of this proposal is to facilitate violent and insurrectionary ideology."

"Who said these anti-democratic beliefs will go unopposed? If you have the right to advocate for overthrowing the government or establishing a totalitarian regime, I sure as hell have the right to disagree and say 'actually, I quite like democracy.'"

OOC: I agree with you to some extent, but I think compelled speech and brainwashing are more deleterious to democracy than merely expressing anti-democratic views.

[Tinhampton]

Smith: To be clear, MacGeorge, this proposal forbids governments retaliating against their subjects - I can't think of a better word - for holding, rather than necessarily expressing, opinions. It would not directly weaken or strengthen any national or international regulations on what you can actually say, beyond forbidding governments from requiring you to affirm or reject any belief... perhaps I should make that clearer.

[Tinhampton]

I may submit this in about a week if there are no other concerns.

[Verdant Haven]

• prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against:
  
  1. any person or group due to their opinions, beliefs, or any arbitrary and reductive characteristics they may possess, and
  2. any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary to enforce compliance with international law) or their beliefs,

I would express concern over the use of the term "discriminating" in this context, as that might easily be used to create a back-door circumvention of other laws. For example, a subject might claim the same protections proposed under the massively-defeated "Conscientious Objection to Abortion" proposal, by claiming it is discrimination for them not to be able to legally act upon their own beliefs (and deny an abortion), while while those with opposing beliefs can legally act upon theirs (in support of abortion). I fully support outlawing the concept of a "thought crime," but want to ensure that such a prohibition does not result in allowing real crimes to occur. I would suggest the use of a word such as "persecute" instead, as a blanket legal position can far less readily be called persecution than discrimination.

[Tinhampton]

Article b(i) only covers opinions, not anything that happpens once those opinions are acted upon. I have edited it accordingly.

[Verdant Haven]

Article b(i) only covers opinions, not anything that happpens once those opinions are acted upon. I have edited it accordingly.

With that edit, I do believe I would be in support of this.

[Tinhampton]

Cheers. Prospective submission date fixed to 5pm BST on Thursday 5th August.

[Tinhampton]

No more thoughts on this?

[Tinhampton]

No? In which case we are Proposal-A-Go-Go

This proposal currently has 49 of 53 required approvals. If Jedinsto is reading this, I'll get a proposal to queue faster than you got Protecting Imprisoned Youths there some day... and that proposal will probably be a time-sensitive Liberation. Or something BC/Hulldom likes.

---

EDIT TO ADD: Got 'em!

AS OF 0100 BST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 53 out of 53 needed (Tinhampton, Floyssauu, You Should See Me in a Crown, CoraSpia, TESDAI, Molopovia, The Flyin, Greater Cesnica, The United Provinces of North America, Taki Calxur, Brototh, Enlais, Castle Federation, Krovx Luxembourg, Gibraltarica, Creator Land, Ecolaria, Sedgistan, Erloane, Tomisburg, Russia Major, Hax Baba, Mikeswill, Cloich Cheann Fhaola, Robotox Empire, Ashaie, Jedinsto, Talyang, The Scottish Republic, Mrhallia, Calnodia, Neim, The Traditional States, Seludong, Novum Orientis, Il Osoris, Fritzentein, Boris Cult, Hometania, Dellettia, Union of Noovistian, Republic of Blank, Calamari Lands, Fachumonn, The Pirates of the West, Eastern Carpathian Free States, Zombiedolphins, Lamerdon, Karteria, The Anarchist Federation of Spain, Terminum, North-West Commland, Misted Lake)

Campaign Telegram:

Greetings, Delegate. Today, I ask you to approve my proposal to protect Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

I believe that governments should not punish people simply because of their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or thoughts. If you agree, then I urge you to approve Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

Thank you,
The Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton

[Hulldom]

No? In which case we are Proposal-A-Go-Go

This proposal currently has 49 of 53 required approvals. If Jedinsto is reading this, I'll get a proposal to queue faster than you got Protecting Imprisoned Youths there some day... and that proposal will probably be a time-sensitive Liberation. Or something BC/Hulldom likes.

---

EDIT TO ADD: Got 'em!

I mean, I'd really love to know what exactly the point in calling me out in that one is. I don't help Jedinsto with his campaigns unless he asks for it, and even then it's nudging one or two Delegates who are personal friends of mine.

[Jedinsto]

No? In which case we are Proposal-A-Go-Go

This proposal currently has 49 of 53 required approvals. If Jedinsto is reading this, I'll get a proposal to queue faster than you got Protecting Imprisoned Youths there some day... and that proposal will probably be a time-sensitive Liberation. Or something BC/Hulldom likes.

---

EDIT TO ADD: Got 'em!

AS OF 0100 BST ON FRIDAY: Approvals: 53 out of 53 needed (Tinhampton, Floyssauu, You Should See Me in a Crown, CoraSpia, TESDAI, Molopovia, The Flyin, Greater Cesnica, The United Provinces of North America, Taki Calxur, Brototh, Enlais, Castle Federation, Krovx Luxembourg, Gibraltarica, Creator Land, Ecolaria, Sedgistan, Erloane, Tomisburg, Russia Major, Hax Baba, Mikeswill, Cloich Cheann Fhaola, Robotox Empire, Ashaie, Jedinsto, Talyang, The Scottish Republic, Mrhallia, Calnodia, Neim, The Traditional States, Seludong, Novum Orientis, Il Osoris, Fritzentein, Boris Cult, Hometania, Dellettia, Union of Noovistian, Republic of Blank, Calamari Lands, Fachumonn, The Pirates of the West, Eastern Carpathian Free States, Zombiedolphins, Lamerdon, Karteria, The Anarchist Federation of Spain, Terminum, North-West Commland, Misted Lake)

Campaign Telegram:

Greetings, Delegate. Today, I ask you to approve my proposal to protect Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

I believe that governments should not punish people simply because of their sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or thoughts. If you agree, then I urge you to approve Freedom of Opinion and Belief.

Thank you,
The Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton

The big sadge! For future reference, what was the time?

No? In which case we are Proposal-A-Go-Go

This proposal currently has 49 of 53 required approvals. If Jedinsto is reading this, I'll get a proposal to queue faster than you got Protecting Imprisoned Youths there some day... and that proposal will probably be a time-sensitive Liberation. Or something BC/Hulldom likes.

---

EDIT TO ADD: Got 'em!

I mean, I'd really love to know what exactly the point in calling me out in that one is. I don't help Jedinsto with his campaigns unless he asks for it, and even then it's nudging one or two Delegates who are personal friends of mine.

I think she was saying one day the proposal she gets to quorum faster than I got PIY to quorum will be something good enough that you actually like it, since it seems you don't like a single draft of hers

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

requires members to permit the holding and expression of facts, however inconvenient, by their inhabitants, and

"As an illustration of how poorly thought out this mandate is, we have arranged to hold a seminary immediately upon passage on the proper way to make pipe bombs from ammonia nitrate and our undersecretary will be posting the residential addresses of every approving delegate that we were able to find on the wall outside of our office. We offer no opinion on what any delegation should do with either piece of information."

[Araraukar]

OOC: In addition to agreeing with the challenge (that this currently contradicts many existing resolutions), I am amused to note that "thought crime" is not actually forbidden by the text, nor is brainwashing.

This would also seem to ban the "I swear to tell the truth" oath in trials. And NS equivalent of Hippocrates' oath. And military oaths. And any other such formalized "expression of belief".

[PotatoFarmers]

This would also seem to ban the "I swear to tell the truth" oath in trials. And NS equivalent of Hippocrates' oath. And military oaths. And any other such formalized "expression of belief".

OOC: I have heard this argument before on how it would ban oaths. But I am curious - is it overly stretching the definition of "expression of belief" to include such oaths?