[DEFEATED] Repeal GA#537 "Right to Assemble"

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 25th and 29th of March, 2023.
It was defeated by a margin of 12,018 votes (about 81%) to 2,876 (about 19%).

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Repeals Board.
NOTE: at 1812 GMT on the 8th of February 2023, this proposal reached quorum with Cactus Kingdom's approval, the 62nd all told.

---

Character count: 4,661
Word count: 728

ICly, this is the work of Kevin Mitchell, who replaced Victoria Jenkins after the shambles that was Repeal "Prevention Of Forced Sterilisation."

OOC: A bill to facilitate the passage of Right To Peaceful Assembly Protecting Peaceful Assembly, and for other purposes. This will likely not be submitted before July 2021 mid-June 2022 January 2023 This will be submitted in early February 2023. Regarding Article g.

Repeal "Right to Assemble"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#537

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #537 “Right to Assemble” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly finds the following:

1. GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly" was repealed by GA#536 to facilitate GA#537 "Right to Assemble." The goal of GA#537, to protect peaceful assembly subject to certain conditions, is admirable and largely achieved by its first four Articles; yet this does not mean that they are perfect, nor does its Article 5 promote efficient use of state resources.
2. GA#537, unlike GA#27, establishes no positive right to organise or partake in "non-violent assembl[ies]," only negative rights for their organisers and participants. (Article 1 guarantees that they will not receive "punitive or discriminatory action" by a member state for so organising or participating; Article 2 requires that such assemblies not be "prevent[ed] or hinder[ed]" by "member states nor private entities within them.") Any ideal legislation on this matter would seek to establish both positive and negative rights to peaceful assembly.
3. These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated so that assemblies which involve "harmful activities" may be controlled. However, Article 3 allows only "advocacy of violence towards an individual or group," "unlawful action" and "advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action" to be deemed harmful activities, while Article 2 allows peaceful assemblies to be broken up solely in order to "prevent[] or curtail[] harmful activities." This means that many of GA#536's concerns about when assemblies could be broken up under GA#27 are left unanswered by GA#537: for example, those members where blocking the passage of emergency service vehicles like ambulances is not illegal cannot temporarily break up assemblies to unblock their passage (which puts lives and property at indirect risk in such members), while members cannot generally prevent assemblies that occur in locations or situations demonstrably hazardous to the health of their participants.
4. Article 5 of GA#537 has two parts. Article 5a permits members to restrict "non-violent assemblies" that promote "actions or inaction that would constitute: the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or hatred towards an individual or group" due to their possession of an arbitrary and reductive characteristic. Article 5b compels members who opt not to impose such restrictions to "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by such advocacy."
5. Concerningly, Article 5 concerningly does not define what counts as "hatred," what precise forms "abuse" can take, and what a "necessary" safety measure is, allowing unscrupulous governments to adopt overly broad definitions and suppress assemblies they merely find distasteful on those pretexts. Nor are members exempt from their Article 5b obligations just because a local police force acts to "prevent or curtail the advocacy" of any "actions or inaction" proscribed by Article 5a on its own, encouraging central government intervention in law enforcement even if all police forces are organised and empowered solely on the local scale.
6. GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" implicitly requires members to sanction other members that do not satisfy Article 5b, and forbids future resolutions from time-limiting such sanctions or banning their imposition on certain goods. Resolutions that entail such drastic measures for members who refuse to suppress (or else "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by") speech that may not even violate their own national laws, let alone other international laws, should not be kept on the books.
7. Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that, in order to avoid such sanctions, a member state which (for instance) chooses to permit an assembly calling for all of its inhabitants who hail from a particular nation to be repatriated there, which can be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," may have to supply guards on a temporary basis to protect those inhabitants' houses because it will "ensure the[ir] safety." This may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires data disaggregated by national origin to be collected for any reason. But they must somehow still seek to "ensure the safety of [those] individuals" even if some such inhabitants do not want home security, since they may see its provision as necessary for those inhabitants' safety.
8. GA#537 is unwieldy, unfit for purpose and - since this body can neither amend Article 3, insert a new Article explicitly protecting peaceful assembly, nor remove Article 5 only - must be repealed entirely.

The GA therefore repeals GA#537 "Right to Assemble."

---

---

---

---

---

OLD DRAFTS

The General Assembly finds the following:

1. The goal of GA#537 "Right to Assemble" - to protect peaceful assembly subject to certain conditions - is admirable and largely achieved by its first four Articles; yet this does not mean that they are perfect, nor does its fifth Article promote efficient use of state resources.
2. GA#537 - unlike its predecessor, GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly," and unlike any ideal legislation on this matter - does not establish a positive right to organise or partake in "non-violent assembl[ies]," only negative rights for their organisers and participants. (Article 1 guarantees a negative right for such individuals not to be subject to "punitive or discriminatory action" by a member state; its Article 2, a negative right for them not to be "prevent[ed] or hinder[ed]" by "member states or private entities within them" for such organisation or participation.)
3. These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated to allow for assemblies which constitute "harmful activities" to be controlled. However, Article 3 allows only "the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group," "unlawful action" and "advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action" to be classified as harmful activities. GA#537 hence prohibits member states which do not necessarily ban advocacy of illegal activity from preventing assemblies at which that non-violent illegal activity not covered by its Article 5, such as the destruction of private property or the extralegal abrogation of the local system of government, is being promoted but unlikely to be imminently conducted.
4. Article 5 of GA#537 is split into two sections. Article 5a permits members to restrict "non-violent assemblies" that promote "actions or inaction that would constitute: the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or hatred towards an individual or group" due to their possession of an arbitrary and reductive characteristic. Article 5b compels members who opt not to impose such restrictions to "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by such advocacy."
5. Notwithstanding this august body's belief that it should focus on offenders rather than victims should it ever introduce substantial regulation of hate speech, Article 5's provisions are problematic inasmuch as they do not define what counts as "hatred," what precise forms "abuse" can take, and what a "necessary" protection measure is. Nor are members exempt from their obligations under Article 5b simply because a local police force (for instance) acts to "prevent or curtail the advocacy" of any "actions or inaction" proscribed in Article 5a without coordinating with any member government.
6. GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" implicitly requires members to impose sanctions on those states that do not fulfil their obligations under Article 5b, and forbids future resolutions from time-limiting such sanctions or banning their imposition on certain goods. Resolutions should not be kept on the books if they entail members facing such drastic economic consequences for refusing to prevent the propagation of (or otherwise "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by") speech that may not even contradict their own national laws, let alone other international laws.
7. Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that it is more than possible that - in order to avoid such sanctions - a member state which:
   
   1. chooses to permit an assembly calling for all inhabitants of that member hailing from a particular country to voluntarily repatriate themselves to said country, which is likely to be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," could be obliged to provide emotional support to such inhabitants - which may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires disaggregated data based on national origin to be collected for any reason,
   2. implicitly tolerates a two-person protest calling for the highest-ranking general of a country with which that member is at war to be slapped in the face with a wet fish could be bound to provide security services for that general, even if they already receive around-the-clock protection, and
   3. relies on its political subdivisions and their agencies to enforce Article 5a will have to "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the [targeted] individuals" at each protest where such enforcement happens, but would not be required to do so if it directly enforced Article 5a.
8. GA#537 is unwieldy, unfit for purpose and - since this august body can neither amend Article 3, insert a new Article explicitly protecting peaceful assembly, nor strike out Article 5 only - must be repealed entirely.

The GA therefore repeals GA#537 "Right to Assemble."

[Thermodolia]

Will support the repeal but not the replacement

[South St Maarten]

In my opinion, clause h is unnecessary, unless you are noting specifically that you intend for a replacement resolution to be drafted.

Regarding the rest of the proposal, I'll offer marginal support. (Also Tinhampton, when I clicked on the link within the proposal itself it led me to Resolution #8, Restrictions on child labor. I dont know if it was me or the link wasn't right but you should take a look at that)

[Maowi]

These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated to allow for assemblies which constitute "harmful activities" to be controlled. While Article 3a defines "the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group" as a "harmful activit[y]," it merely requires that "uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence" apply without even outlining these standards, and does not allow for the advocacy of all illegal acts to be banned. Hence, for instance, despite female genital mutilation being banned by GA#114 and widely recognised (although not by GA#114) as a form of violence against women, member states are regrettably not allowed to prohibit an assembly at which it is being promoted where it is unlikely to be imminently conducted.

OOC: I'd note that the point made here is not addressed in GC's draft (Right to Peaceful Assembly does not outline standards for what constitutes advocacy of violence) so, if they decide to move forward with that as a replacement with this repeal, it should probably be looked at, and if they don't, then I don't think it would be fair to include them in this repeal. I would also like to see a definition for "advocacy of violence" which excludes advocating for FGM ... perhaps consider using a different example there?

(Edited for my brain doing stupid things)

[Tinhampton]

Will support the repeal but not the replacement

In my opinion, clause h is unnecessary, unless you are noting specifically that you intend for a replacement resolution to be drafted.

I will not be writing a replacement and am currently supportive of GC's draft on the Right To Peaceful Assembly.

Regarding the rest of the proposal, I'll offer marginal support.

How marginal?

(Also Tinhampton, when I clicked on the link within the proposal itself it led me to Resolution #8, Restrictions on child labor. I dont know if it was me or the link wasn't right but you should take a look at that)

Fixed - I derped with my boilerplate code.

OOC: I'd note that the point made here [i.e. in Article c] is not addressed in GC's draft (Right to Peaceful Assembly does not outline standards for what constitutes advocacy of violence) so, if they decide to move forward with that as a replacement with this repeal, it should probably be looked at, and if they don't, then I don't think it would be fair to include them in this repeal. I would also like to see a definition for "advocacy of violence" which excludes advocating for FGM ... perhaps consider using a different example there?

1. I thought my problem is not that RTPA does not define what "advocacy of violence" is but that GA#537 requires uniformly applied standards to define such advocacy... apparently not. Article c will likely be changed soon.
2. I am not working with GC on this draft and he is not working with me on his draft. In any event, he is not currently focusing on RTPA and this is not a particularly high-priority repeal.

[Tinhampton]

Still working on this. The old Article c, as quoted by Maowi, has been amended appropriately to better reflect my concerns.

Given GC's ongoing inactivity, I will likely be embarking on my own replacement should I push ahead with this repeal. Time pressures in real life and elsewhere on NS mean I won't be able to get to it for at least a week and a bit - if not until next month.

[Hulldom]

Negative rights good. Opposed.

[Wymondham]

Negative rights good. Opposed.

Hobbes do be based like that

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Negative rights good. Opposed.

“Let me see. *reads the definition of negative rights*. Nope, I have to disagree. Her highness should have the full ability to intervene against the rights of a person . In all seriousness though, the proposal laid out by the Tinhamptonian ambassador seems good, but definitely needs to define certain terms in the proposal, such as “negative rights” and etc.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Tinhampton]

Mitchell: The concept of negative rights are sufficiently well-known among ambassadors that I don't see the point in re-explaining them here, do I?

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Mitchell: The concept of negative rights are sufficiently well-known among ambassadors that I don't see the point in re-explaining them here, do I?

“To be honest, ambassador Mitchell, I had to consult my WA dictionary “
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Fachumonn]

[*]GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" implicitly requires members to impose sanctions on those states that do not fulfill their obligations under Article 5b, and forbids future resolutions from time-limiting such sanctions or banning their imposition on certain goods. Resolutions should not be kept on the books if they entail members facing such drastic economic consequences for refusing to prevent the propagation of speech that may not even contradict their own national laws, let alone other international laws.

Minor nitpick.

[Tinhampton]

Not satisfied that "fulfil" is a typo.

Those of you who were sceptical of my thoughts about positive and negative rights may be reassured to hear that I believe that both kinds of right can be promoted and satisfied in a resolution on peaceful assembly. To that extent, I have (finally) published my replacement. You'll note it's a bit strong on negative rights, but I do require member states to broadly permit peaceful assembly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

[*]GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" implicitly requires members to impose sanctions on those states that do not fulfill their obligations under Article 5b, and forbids future resolutions from time-limiting such sanctions or banning their imposition on certain goods. Resolutions should not be kept on the books if they entail members facing such drastic economic consequences for refusing to prevent the propagation of speech that may not even contradict their own national laws, let alone other international laws.

Minor nitpick.

Please stop with the pretension that AmE is the only English. https://www.lexico.com/definition/fulfil/.

[Fachumonn]

Minor nitpick.

Please stop with the pretension that AmE is the only English. https://www.lexico.com/definition/fulfil/.

I didn't realize there were two ways to spell it, sorry.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated to allow for assemblies which constitute "harmful activities" to be controlled. However, Article 3 allows only "the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group," "unlawful action" and "advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action" to be classified as harmful activities. GA#537 hence prohibits member states from preventing assemblies at which that non-violent illegal activity not covered by its Article 5, such as the destruction of private property or the extralegal abrogation of the local system of government, is being promoted but unlikely to be imminently conducted.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'We believe that destruction of private property is a form of violence, and even if a member state does not agree, advocation of destruction of property is probably unlawful. If it is not, then it is not a problem for a member state to be barred from prosecuting assemblies for advocating destruction of property, especially when they can just make advocating destruction of private property illegal.'

Notwithstanding this august body's belief that regulation of hate speech is best managed at the national level without WA interference

'No.'

[Tinhampton]

These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated to allow for assemblies which constitute "harmful activities" to be controlled. However, Article 3 allows only "the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group," "unlawful action" and "advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action" to be classified as harmful activities. GA#537 hence prohibits member states from preventing assemblies at which that non-violent illegal activity not covered by its Article 5, such as the destruction of private property or the extralegal abrogation of the local system of government, is being promoted but unlikely to be imminently conducted.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'We believe that destruction of private property is a form of violence, and even if a member state does not agree, advocation of destruction of property is probably unlawful. If it is not, then it is not a problem for a member state to be barred from prosecuting assemblies for advocating destruction of property, especially when they can just make advocating destruction of private property illegal.'

Mitchell: This clause - after some discussion elsewhere - now makes reference to "member states which do not necessarily ban advocacy of illegal activity."

Notwithstanding this august body's belief that regulation of hate speech is best managed at the national level without WA interference

'No.'

Mitchell: While the temptation to snap back with a simple "yes" is extremely strong, I have recently discovered that international attitudes have, to some extent, shifted in favour of regulation. While those attitudes far from reflect Tinhamptonian beliefs on the subject - a simple decrial of queerphobic "bullying" rather than "hate speech" would have been very much preferable - changes have been made regardless.

[Tinhampton]

Draft #2, which revises Article c and cuts some words off everywhere else, is now up. Thanks to Maowi for the help (even though she didn't want co-author credit). Still looking at submission in a couple of weeks or so.

[Tinhampton]

Yo, dude, wassup?

[Tinhampton]

Assuming that there is no substantial criticism of my replacement, I plan to submit this over the weekend.

[Starman of Stardust]

"While we are not opposed to repeal on principle, we find the arguments made by this repeal to be unconvincing. We strongly encourage the authoring mission to refine these arguments further prior to submitting, and if possible still wait longer before submitting."

GA#537 - unlike GA#27 or any ideal legislation on this matter - establishes no positive right to organise or partake in "non-violent assembl[ies]," only negative rights for their organisers and participants. (Article 1 guarantees that they will not receive "punitive or discriminatory action" by a member state for so organising or participating; Article 2 requires that such assemblies not be "prevent[ed] or hinder[ed]" by "member states nor private entities within them.")

"Why is this such a problem?"

for example, those members where blocking the passage of emergency service vehicles like ambulances is not illegal

"Why would blocking the passage of emergency service vehicles not be illegal in a nation that wants to break up assembles for doing it?"

Notwithstanding this august body's belief that hate speech regulation should ideally focus on offenders, not victims

"What is your source for this claim, ambassador?"

Article 5 concerningly does not define what counts as "hatred," what precise forms "abuse" can take, and what a "necessary" safety measure is. Nor are members exempt from their Article 5b obligations just because a local police force (for instance) acts to "prevent or curtail the advocacy" of any "actions or inaction" proscribed by Article 5a without coordinating with any member government.

"While we agree that these are both problems, this should use more elaboration as to why this is harmful."

Resolutions that entail such drastic measures for members who refuse to suppress (or else "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by") speech that may not even violate their own national laws, let alone other international laws, should not be kept on the books.

"What?"

Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that, in order to avoid such sanctions, a member state which:
[list=i][*]chooses to permit an assembly calling for all of its inhabitants who hail from a particular nation to freely repatriate themselves there, which can be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," may have to provide emotional support to such inhabitants because it will "ensure the[ir] safety" - which may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires data disaggregated by national origin to be collected for any reason,

"Or, a nation could simply refuse to allow such an assembly. Further, how is providing emotional support necessary to ensure the safety of such inhabitants?"

implicitly tolerates a two-person protest calling for the highest-ranking general of a country with which it is at war to be slapped in the face with a wet fish could be bound to deliver security services for that general, even if they already receive around-the-clock protection, and

"How is hatred based on military rank motivated by nationality? Further, if the general 'already [receives] around-the-clock protection', then delivering security services for that general would not be 'necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by such advocacy'. This is arguably the grossest misrepresentation of the target you have made in this repeal."

relies on its political subdivisions and their agencies to enforce Article 5a must "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by" each protest where such enforcement happens, but would not have to do so if it directly enforced Article 5a.

"This argument needs more elaboration to be convincing."

"In case it is not already clear, the Union mission is strongly opposed to this draft as written."

[Tinhampton]

This entire post is IC and all comments are made by Kevin Mitchell.

---

"While we are not opposed to repeal on principle, we find the arguments made by this repeal to be unconvincing. We strongly encourage the authoring mission to refine these arguments further prior to submitting, and if possible still wait longer before submitting."

Hayden... I believe you are, I think. Do they have nametags here? Anyway, you should be very lucky I've slept on this for longer than anybody in my drafting team wanted.

GA#537 - unlike GA#27 or any ideal legislation on this matter - establishes no positive right to organise or partake in "non-violent assembl[ies]," only negative rights for their organisers and participants. (Article 1 guarantees that they will not receive "punitive or discriminatory action" by a member state for so organising or participating; Article 2 requires that such assemblies not be "prevent[ed] or hinder[ed]" by "member states nor private entities within them.")

"Why is this such a problem?"

The Tinhamptonians have always believed that a hybrid approach would provide the most solid and visible guarantee of the right to peaceful assembly.

for example, those members where blocking the passage of emergency service vehicles like ambulances is not illegal

"Why would blocking the passage of emergency service vehicles not be illegal in a nation that wants to break up assembles for doing it?"

Because the blockage of such vehicles may be a rare and generally unproblematic occurence which the government may not believe warrants regulation. If assemblies start to make such blocks more frequent and prominent, police forces and such of the like cannot then act to break them up. This is because legal activities which neither promote criminal activity nor advocate violence against others - such as blocking emergency vehicles - cannot be classified as harmful, and so assemblies cannot be broken up for that reason, until they are outlawed.
If you would like further context, please refer to the target resolution and Resolution 536, Repeal "Freedom of Assembly."

Notwithstanding this august body's belief that hate speech regulation should ideally focus on offenders, not victims

"What is your source for this claim, ambassador?"

This is a statement of the World Assembly's opinion. The World Assembly is allowed to adopt new opinions on subject matters as they arise. I have, however, suspended its inclusion in Article e until enough ambassadors believe it sufficiently uncontroversial to warrant inclusion. Which might be never. Beware.

Article 5 concerningly does not define what counts as "hatred," what precise forms "abuse" can take, and what a "necessary" safety measure is. Nor are members exempt from their Article 5b obligations just because a local police force (for instance) acts to "prevent or curtail the advocacy" of any "actions or inaction" proscribed by Article 5a without coordinating with any member government.

"While we agree that these are both problems, this should use more elaboration as to why this is harmful."

Thank you. Consider this done.

Resolutions that entail such drastic measures for members who refuse to suppress (or else "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by") speech that may not even violate their own national laws, let alone other international laws, should not be kept on the books.

"What?"

The World Assembly does not require member states to forbid either of the categories of speech outlined in Article 5a. This means that in some member states, these categories of speech are permissible in most circumstances, such as one-on-one discussion. But if an assembly espousing either category of speech occurs, member states must then act to protect the targets through all means necessary, due to Article 5b. If they do not take such action, they are liable for non-compliance proceedings. This is what I mean by "drastic consequences for members who refuse to suppress... speech that may not" violate the law.

Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that, in order to avoid such sanctions, a member state which:
[list=i][*]chooses to permit an assembly calling for all of its inhabitants who hail from a particular nation to freely repatriate themselves there, which can be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," may have to provide emotional support to such inhabitants because it will "ensure the[ir] safety" - which may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires data disaggregated by national origin to be collected for any reason,

"Or, a nation could simply refuse to allow such an assembly. Further, how is providing emotional support necessary to ensure the safety of such inhabitants?"

Many member states do not forbid speech simply because it advocates hatred against a particular class. If they choose not to extend that prohibition to assemblies, as the target resolution says they are within their right to do, Article 5b requires them to take "all steps necessary" to protect that assembly's targets. Emotional counseling is an obvious example of a step that can be taken to make those targets feel safer.

implicitly tolerates a two-person protest calling for the highest-ranking general of a country with which it is at war to be slapped in the face with a wet fish could be bound to deliver security services for that general, even if they already receive around-the-clock protection, and

"How is hatred based on military rank motivated by nationality? Further, if the general 'already [receives] around-the-clock protection', then delivering security services for that general would not be 'necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by such advocacy'. This is arguably the grossest misrepresentation of the target you have made in this repeal."

On your first point, this is not "hatred based on military rank." It is promoting physical abuse, namely being slapped in the face. Article 5b requires that "member states must take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by" the kind of speech enumerated in Article 5a(i), namely the promotion of "the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group."
On your second point... that is, in fact, a very good point. I have reduced Article g to a single, but more comprehensively-explained, example - the first one.

relies on its political subdivisions and their agencies to enforce Article 5a must "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by" each protest where such enforcement happens, but would not have to do so if it directly enforced Article 5a.

"This argument needs more elaboration to be convincing."

I have removed this clause, being stated as it is elsewhere in the draft.

"In case it is not already clear, the Union mission is strongly opposed to this draft as written."

Article g has been changed, and Article e expanded upon, in response to your concerns. If you have any further concerns, I encourage you to reach out to me or my superiors in the Tinhamptonian office. Or you could just do another round of hammering my new draft again. I don't mind either way.

[Kenmoria]

“The end of clause g features rather a lot of instances of ‘they’, and various declensions thereof, which refer to different entities. This made it rather difficult to read, so I suggest reworking that part of the clause slightly. Regardless, I fully support this proposal.”

[Tinhampton]

“The end of clause g features rather a lot of instances of ‘they’, and various declensions thereof, which refer to different entities. This made it rather difficult to read, so I suggest reworking that part of the clause slightly. Regardless, I fully support this proposal.”

Mitchell: My apologies; I was in a bit of a rush when I scribbled that out. But consider those revisions done, too.

[Tinhampton]

Article g was changed slightly to respond to Starman of Stardust's comments on November 22nd. The old version is in the below spoiler.

SoS and I continue to diverge on two points he raised.

1. He thinks that Article b offers insufficient justification. I argue that I am not trying to create one coherent argument, but rather collate a group of viable and compelling arguments.
2. He argues that my Article c example is inconsistent with reasonable nation theory. But I think that member states where blocking emergency vehicles has never until recently been a serious issue could face a problem in dealing with a surge of protests that block them in some way.

Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that, in order to avoid such sanctions, a member state which (for instance) chooses to permit an assembly calling for all of its inhabitants who hail from a particular nation to freely repatriate themselves there, which can be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," may have to provide emotional support to such inhabitants because it will "ensure the[ir] safety." This may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires data disaggregated by national origin to be collected for any reason. But they must somehow still seek to "ensure the safety of [those] individuals" even if some such inhabitants do not want support, since they may see the provision of such support as necessary for those inhabitants' safety.