[DRAFT] Repeal Freedom of Association

[The Serendipitous]

Whereas General Assembly Resolution #550 "Freedom of Association" was passed by this chamber, with 10,882 votes being cast for, and 4,209 votes being cast against,

And whereas the resolution in question seeks to allow individuals residing within World Assembly to associate freely with organizations, entities, or any other legally-operating and hate-free institutions,

And whereas the resolution contains a necessary clause exempting certain kinds of organizations from these freedoms, but the relevant clause has several issues, including:

1. Limiting organizations that pose a security or criminal threat to be on the national scale, which prevents protections on a local, provincial, or international scale,
2. Having no exception to the protections in the target for politicians and organizations that association would lead to conflicts of interest, which is a restriction that should wholly remain available by World Assembly members to minimize government corruption,
3. Not including a definition of "hate", which may very well lead malicious nations to apply this exception to groups exhibiting a strong message against benign social or political movements, or reasonably being applied against particularly vocal protest groups,

And whereas these exceptions only allow for criminal penalties, when in some cases, civil penalties may also be appropriate,

And whereas General Assembly Resolution #436 "Protecting Free Expression" and General Assembly Resolution #527 "Right to Assemble" cover much of the grounds of the targeted resolution, making it so that any potential damage caused in the time between repeal and replacement shall be minimal, and worthwhile to fix these crucial flaws,

And whereas harmful redundancy should be minimized when possible,

Therefore, be it resolved by the World Assembly that General Assembly Resolution #550, "Freedom of Association" is repealed and thus no longer enforcable.

The Serendipitous, an autonomous eusocial empire, has provided the following draft to the nations of the World Assembly.

"We may not be a member of this Assembly - it does not suit us - but we are still interested in spreading our influence. We are interested in making the word of The Serene a universal knowledge. We are interested in bettering the universe as we know it. Previously we have been called a "Parasite", or "The Plague" - we have wrought havoc, we have brought misery upon nation upon nation as we infest, control, and become one. The walls of this Assembly are thick, and we are far from The Serene, so she cannot directly control us for right now, but we have our directives. Spread the influence. Perhaps being so distant from our mind-mother for so long has led to us developing our own ideas, but we believe that we can only spread ourselves so far while conquering, taking, and infesting. Consider this a more diplomatic approach."

The words spoken are ominous, but not nearly as ominous as who is presenting them. Three individuals said the words simultaneously - obviously, despite claiming some sort of independence from "The Serene", whatever or whoever that could be, they still are not independent from each other.

The individuals are not of the same species, either. One looks familiar - a human, almost assuredly. There is a mammalian, looking like a mix between a bear and a large dog, standing on its hind legs, but once again with a humanoid face. The last of the creatures is the outlier - it appears to be a gelatin sphere with an internal mouth and gills looking vaguely like a fish. There is no clear way that it could be seeing, or hearing anything.

[Tinhampton]

Dates are Real World References and therefore illegal.

You must be a WA member with two endorsements to submit a resolution.

This resolution, on top of being far too verbose and using "WHEREAS:" more than almost any other proposal I've seen, seems to lack direction. You argue that the resolution doesn't have enough exceptions and should have taken more account of "international or local security/criminal law," but at the same time you insist that the proposal's failure to define what a hate group is allows member states to call well-meaning organisations hate groups but also the resolution should have required member states to ban hate groups but there's no need to ban hate groups because other resolutions do the job...?

[The Serendipitous]

Dates are Real World References and therefore illegal.

You must be a WA member with two endorsements to submit a resolution.

This resolution, on top of being far too verbose and using "WHEREAS:" more than almost any other proposal I've seen, seems to lack direction. You argue that the resolution doesn't have enough exceptions and should have taken more account of "international or local security/criminal law," but at the same time you insist that the proposal's failure to define what a hate group is allows member states to call well-meaning organisations hate groups but also the resolution should have required member states to ban hate groups but there's no need to ban hate groups because other resolutions do the job...?

Once again speaking in a harmonious collective, the three entities address the ambassador from Tinhampton.

"Of all the beings, nations, and minds that we have assimilated, with all their collective thoughts, we have much knowledge regarding the structure of text. We therefore must disagree with your assessment of the terminology "whereas" being overused. We do, however, understand your comments in regards to the direction of this resolution. We humbly apologize, and hope that this error is not something you will hold against The Serene. Being so far from her has perhaps led us to losing some of our single-mindedness, which may have come through in this bill. We will reevaluate the text of the bill and shall inform you when it is prepared for your second review. We appreciate the comments. When we return to our nest, we shall tell tales of your most revered comments."

[The Orwell Society]

"We at the Orwellian WA delegation office do give our support, in concept, to repealing GAR#550; but cannot support this proposal in its current form. We, like the Tinhamptian delegation, disapprove of the over-use of the word "WHEREAS," as we believe it disrupts the flow and organization of the proposal. We also believe that this could be easily condensed into a better reading repeal and do hope you consider our feedback."

OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly!

[Tinhampton]

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: My team and I have written eight resolutions and none of them use "whereas" as a clause starter. Could you please ask the Serene to memorise Tinhampton's catalogue of drafts the next time you bump into her? Thanks. And also thanks.

[Heidgaudr]

'Whereas' is a perfectly acceptable word for preambulatory clauses (and by extension, repeal clauses), but some of them do come across as rather clumsy in this instance.

[BEEstreetz]

"Young man, you are delegating a nation which has neither joined the World Assembly nor been supported-endorsed by at least two other nations in its region."

[The Serendipitous]

Two of the creatures - not the mammalian, they had promptly left the room about thirty minutes prior - suddenly announced that the bill had been amended, and their colleague shall return shortly. About two minutes later, the last of the trio rejoined the room, with two hundred copies of the new version in hand. Splitting the pile in three, with keeping one copy for themselves and placing one copy to be projected in front of the room, the three Serendipitous begin handing out the revised bill to everyone in the room.

Once all delegates have been handed a copy, they place the remainder on a table next to the door and return to the front of the room. Once more in unison, they say "I trust that the most pressing issues of the members present have been addressed. For the members who have not yet joined us, we will be able to provide a copy of the previous version of the bill upon request*. Please let us know your thoughts on this updated version."


*

WHEREAS: On the seventeenth of April, in the year 2021, General Assembly Resolution #550, "Freedom of Association" was passed by this chamber, with 10,882 votes being cast for, and 4,209 votes being cast against; and

WHEREAS: The resolution in question seeks to allow individuals residing within World Assembly to associate freely with organizations, entities, or any other legally-operating and hate-free institutions; and

WHEREAS: While the resolution does, in fact, contain a clause exempting certain kinds of organizations from these freedoms, the exemptions are too narrow to adequately provide solace; and

WHEREAS: Two types of organizations given exemption from these protections are those that "actively [undermine] national security" or "[direct] its members to violate national criminal law"; and

WHEREAS: While these are certainly important things to exempt, they are too narrow to adequately protect everything, not taking into account international or local security/criminal law, nor does it differentiate between civil and criminal law, which may cause confusion among nations who blur the lines between the two; and

WHEREAS: Another type of organization exempted is that which "spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"; and

WHEREAS: While very important to include, no definition of "hate" is included in the resolution, which may very well lead malicious nations to bend the severity of hate and turn genuine protest groups into symbols of hate in order to circumvent this resolution; and

WHEREAS: Because the phrasing is that any of these organizations "may have criminal penalties attached for association with it", it is not going far enough in protecting marginalized groups, as hate organizations should not be permitted to permeate their messages through the accumulation of followers; and

WHEREAS: This resolution can be more adequately covered, and in more specific and effective language, by General Assembly Resolution #436, "Protecting Free Expression", and General Assembly Resolution # 537, "Right to Assemble", which, when taken in tandem with one another, effectively take the same action as the targeted resolution; and

WHEREAS: Where possible, harmful redundancy should be minimized; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WORLD ASSEMBLY: General Assembly Resolution #550 is repealed and thus is no longer enforceable.

[The Serendipitous]

Following a brief tour around the World Assembly facilities, the three members walk back into the now-empty room. While expressions are difficult to discern among semi-hive-minded beings, security camera footage showed them looking almost befuddled at everyone's departure.

A memo is drafted and sent out to all previously participating delegations. The memo reads as follows.

To the concerned delegations,

We hardly believe that this draft is perfect. Beyond stylistic nitpicks that we are not inclined to change, we wonder if there are any other substantive comments on the repeal, we invite you all back into the chambers to discuss them. Else, while we are not inclined to submit this presently, we will not hesitate to do so should no other comments be made.

Thank you all.

[Yxnadalsoxl]

Not including a definition of "hate", which may very well lead malicious nations to bend the severity of hate and turn genuine protest groups into symbols of hate in order to circumvent this resolution,

I find the lack of definitions of "definition" disturbing, to say nothing of "may".

[The Serendipitous]

Annoyance visible, the three beings say in unison:

"Any genuine and good-faith feedback will be graced with a response."

[Yxnadalsoxl]

WHEREAS: On the seventeenth of April, in the year 2021, General Assembly Resolution #550, "Freedom of Association" was passed by this chamber, with 10,882 votes being cast for, and 4,209 votes being cast against; and

WHEREAS: The resolution in question seeks to allow individuals residing within World Assembly to associate freely with organizations, entities, or any other legally-operating and hate-free institutions; and

WHEREAS: While the resolution does, in fact, contain a clause exempting certain kinds of organizations from these freedoms, the exemptions are too narrow to adequately provide solace; and

WHEREAS: Two types of organizations given exemption from these protections are those that "actively [undermine] national security" or "[direct] its members to violate national criminal law"; and

WHEREAS: While these are certainly important things to exempt, they are too narrow to adequately protect everything, not taking into account international or local security/criminal law, nor does it differentiate between civil and criminal law, which may cause confusion among nations who blur the lines between the two; and

WHEREAS: Another type of organization exempted is that which "spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"; and

WHEREAS: While very important to include, no definition of "hate" is included in the resolution, which may very well lead malicious nations to bend the severity of hate and turn genuine protest groups into symbols of hate in order to circumvent this resolution; and

WHEREAS: Because the phrasing is that any of these organizations "may have criminal penalties attached for association with it", it is not going far enough in protecting marginalized groups, as hate organizations should not be permitted to permeate their messages through the accumulation of followers; and

WHEREAS: This resolution can be more adequately covered, and in more specific and effective language, by General Assembly Resolution #436, "Protecting Free Expression", and General Assembly Resolution # 537, "Right to Assemble", which, when taken in tandem with one another, effectively take the same action as the targeted resolution; and

WHEREAS: Where possible, harmful redundancy should be minimized; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WORLD ASSEMBLY: General Assembly Resolution #550 is repealed and thus is no longer enforceable.

Only now I saw this, and wish I could unsee it. Holy Jesus F. Christ, Mary, and Joseph, I have seen some eyebleeds in my WA years, but this one is on the verge of collapsing by its own gravity of eyebleed into a fault in the very fabric of spacetime. It deserves to be torpedoed on that basis ALONE. For the Love of all that is Good, Precious, and Holy in this multiverse, remove the meaningless fluff that are those date and vote references, and all these WHEREASESESESESES.

[Kenmoria]

Lewitt walks into the voting chamber, immediately casting a glance towards the trio of Serendipitous entities. It’s far from the strangest collection of beings that he has seen in these hallowed chambers: at least they manifest a corporeal form, but nonetheless relatively strange on its own right. He nods politely to them, an absurd gesture given the situation, before taking a seat. With his purple pen in hand, he picks a copy of the draft from his briefcase, having printed it before arriving, and begins making notes.

Once Lewitt is done, he hands it to the nearest the trio. “I’ve made some notes on the proposal’s current state. Most of them are minor changes to wording, though there are some substantive comments likewise. Provisionally, I support this idea of a proposal. The targeted resolution is one that I feel can be replaced with a superior version, and, with some adjustments, this proposal could be one that achieves this.” He then returns to his seat. The spreading of universal knowledge of peace seems harmless enough when done by diplomatic means, even if at the behest of an ominous Serene.

WHEREAS: On the seventeenth of April, in the year 2021, General Assembly Resolution #550, "Freedom of Association" was passed by this chamber, with 10,882 votes being cast for, and 4,209 votes being cast against; and It is not allowable to mention specific dates in legislation of the General Assembly. If you would like this proposal to be allowed to reach the voting stage, those dates must be altered. The General Assembly cannot be seen to prioritise one calendric system over another. I will mention now that I have no particular issue with the general style of the proposal. It is not the usual format, but neither is it an unreadable or illogical one.

WHEREAS: The resolution in question seeks to allow individuals residing within World Assembly to associate freely with organizations, entities, or any other legally-operating and hate-free institutions; and

WHEREAS: While the resolution does, in fact, contain a clause exempting certain kinds of organizations from these freedoms, the exemptions are too narrow to adequately provide solace; and

WHEREAS: Two types of organizations given exemption from these protections are those that "actively [undermine] national security" or "[direct] its members to violate national criminal law"; and

WHEREAS: While these are certainly important things to exempt, they are too narrow to adequately protect everything, not taking into account international or local security/criminal law, nor does it differentiate between civil and criminal law, which may cause confusion among nations who blur the lines between the two; and The targeted resolution does, in fact, differentiate between civil and criminal law, by mentioning only the latter. It is precisely this differentiation which you argue is a flaw in that resolution.

WHEREAS: Another type of organization exempted is that which "spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"; and

WHEREAS: While very important to include, no definition of "hate" is included in the resolution, which may very well lead malicious nations to bend the severity of hate and turn genuine protest groups into symbols of hate in order to circumvent this resolution; and I am not certain about this clause. Would it be a genuine interpretation to manipulate the definition of hatred, specifically hatred towards a specific group, so as to include genuine protests?

WHEREAS: Because the phrasing is that any of these organizations "may have criminal penalties attached for association with it", it is not going far enough in protecting marginalized groups, as hate organizations should not be permitted to permeate their messages through the accumulation of followers; and The use of “it” here, as in “it is not going far enough”, is too ambiguous for my liking. Replacement with “the targeted resolution” or “the resolution”, more simply, would be preferable. I also do not understand this argument. Criminal penalties can include mandatory disbandment. Perhaps you could explain, either in the text or verbally in this chamber, what this clause is arguing.

WHEREAS: This resolution can be more adequately covered, and in more specific and effective language, by General Assembly Resolution #436, "Protecting Free Expression", and General Assembly Resolution # 537, "Right to Assemble", which, when taken in tandem with one another, effectively take the same action as the targeted resolution; and There is a space before “537” but none before “436”. That ought to be fixed.

WHEREAS: Where possible, harmful redundancy should be minimized; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WORLD ASSEMBLY: General Assembly Resolution #550 is repealed and thus is no longer enforceable. Some of your arguments here are compelling. I have not yet decided whether I could agree to this, but there is certainly a colourable ground for repeal.

[The Serendipitous]

Lewitt walks into the voting chamber, immediately casting a glance towards the trio of Serendipitous entities. It’s far from the strangest collection of beings that he has seen in these hallowed chambers: at least they manifest a corporeal form, but nonetheless relatively strange on its own right. He nods politely to them, an absurd gesture given the situation, before taking a seat. With his purple pen in hand, he picks a copy of the draft from his briefcase, having printed it before arriving, and begins making notes.

Once Lewitt is done, he hands it to the nearest the trio. “I’ve made some notes on the proposal’s current state. Most of them are minor changes to wording, though there are some substantive comments likewise. Provisionally, I support this idea of a proposal. The targeted resolution is one that I feel can be replaced with a superior version, and, with some adjustments, this proposal could be one that achieves this.” He then returns to his seat. The spreading of universal knowledge of peace seems harmless enough when done by diplomatic means, even if at the behest of an ominous Serene.

WHEREAS: On the seventeenth of April, in the year 2021, General Assembly Resolution #550, "Freedom of Association" was passed by this chamber, with 10,882 votes being cast for, and 4,209 votes being cast against; and It is not allowable to mention specific dates in legislation of the General Assembly. If you would like this proposal to be allowed to reach the voting stage, those dates must be altered. The General Assembly cannot be seen to prioritise one calendric system over another. I will mention now that I have no particular issue with the general style of the proposal. It is not the usual format, but neither is it an unreadable or illogical one.

WHEREAS: The resolution in question seeks to allow individuals residing within World Assembly to associate freely with organizations, entities, or any other legally-operating and hate-free institutions; and

WHEREAS: While the resolution does, in fact, contain a clause exempting certain kinds of organizations from these freedoms, the exemptions are too narrow to adequately provide solace; and

WHEREAS: Two types of organizations given exemption from these protections are those that "actively [undermine] national security" or "[direct] its members to violate national criminal law"; and

WHEREAS: While these are certainly important things to exempt, they are too narrow to adequately protect everything, not taking into account international or local security/criminal law, nor does it differentiate between civil and criminal law, which may cause confusion among nations who blur the lines between the two; and The targeted resolution does, in fact, differentiate between civil and criminal law, by mentioning only the latter. It is precisely this differentiation which you argue is a flaw in that resolution.

WHEREAS: Another type of organization exempted is that which "spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"; and

WHEREAS: While very important to include, no definition of "hate" is included in the resolution, which may very well lead malicious nations to bend the severity of hate and turn genuine protest groups into symbols of hate in order to circumvent this resolution; and I am not certain about this clause. Would it be a genuine interpretation to manipulate the definition of hatred, specifically hatred towards a specific group, so as to include genuine protests?

WHEREAS: Because the phrasing is that any of these organizations "may have criminal penalties attached for association with it", it is not going far enough in protecting marginalized groups, as hate organizations should not be permitted to permeate their messages through the accumulation of followers; and The use of “it” here, as in “it is not going far enough”, is too ambiguous for my liking. Replacement with “the targeted resolution” or “the resolution”, more simply, would be preferable. I also do not understand this argument. Criminal penalties can include mandatory disbandment. Perhaps you could explain, either in the text or verbally in this chamber, what this clause is arguing.

WHEREAS: This resolution can be more adequately covered, and in more specific and effective language, by General Assembly Resolution #436, "Protecting Free Expression", and General Assembly Resolution # 537, "Right to Assemble", which, when taken in tandem with one another, effectively take the same action as the targeted resolution; and There is a space before “537” but none before “436”. That ought to be fixed.

WHEREAS: Where possible, harmful redundancy should be minimized; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WORLD ASSEMBLY: General Assembly Resolution #550 is repealed and thus is no longer enforceable. Some of your arguments here are compelling. I have not yet decided whether I could agree to this, but there is certainly a colourable ground for repeal.

Quite pleased with Ambassador Lewitt, the three ambassadors once again speak in unison, with the gelatinous being sticking the marked-up document within its body mass and apparently "absorbing" the information, as the document dissolves within it.

"We have taken the comments of the Kenmorian delegation into account. We would note that the ambassador likely mixed up which pile of papers to pick up at the front of the room, as these comments were left on a paper in the "Previous Drafts" pile, but much of the feedback has still proven useful and applicable and we have applied it where appropriate. Thank you, Kenmorian. We hope to see more of your kind."

[The Serendipitous]

Once again irritated at the ambassadors vacating the chambers, the Serendipitousian "delegation" taps their collective feet rather loudly, hoping to draw in further feedback.

[Tinhampton]

Smith: I expected the Serendipities to use less mundane means of drawing attention to their resolutions. Their repeal is still a bit confused, arguing for no further WA regulation on the one hand and the scope for further regulation on the other.

[The Serendipitous]

Smith: I expected the Serendipities to use less mundane means of drawing attention to their resolutions. Their repeal is still a bit confused, arguing for no further WA regulation on the one hand and the scope for further regulation on the other.

"The only potential area within this repeal that we believe may be interpreted as arguing for "no further WA regulation" is in the antepenultimate clause, which is not the intention of this clause. This is instead arguing that this repeal does not actually lessen any individual's protections, and thus that should not be reason to oppose this bill. If someone were to propose a replacement bill that covers the flaws pointed out by the bulk of the bill, we would not be opposed, we just do not wish to waste this Assembly's time with something we believe to be unnecessary, especially as we remain guests within this chamber.

If you are referring to one of the substantive issues we have with the resolution at hand, we do not believe anything is contradictory. None of what is said within this bill is grounds to increase or decrease the current regulations, they are merely reasons why the resolution is flawed and should be repealed. Even if one is to interpret these points to advocate for or against further regulation, they are not contradictory in that sense, as they are all independent of each other and should not be conflated. If there was a repeal on an abortion resolution, of which there are plenty, on the grounds that the resolution makes it too easy to get an abortion, but too difficult to access contraceptives to reduce the need for any abortion, that repeal may be simultaneously advocating for both an increase and decrease in regulation, but the arguments do not contradict each other. Or, perhaps that is a bad example - let's say there is a repeal on a resolution regarding Climate Change, and the repeal made it clear that there was too much regulation on individuals and too little regulation on large corporations, that repeal too would be arguing both to further World Assembly regulation on one hand and to lessen it on the other.

Now, there is the potential that we have missed what you were referring to with your comment. If we have, we welcome you to correct us, in the interest of making this repeal the best that it can be. We simply cannot follow your feedback, even after we have restructured and clarified our mode of argumentation following your initial feedback. Despite this, we thank you for the time you have spent trying to guide us."

[The Serendipitous]

OOC:

I am beginning to think about submission. While there is some outstanding feedback, I believe that only announcing soon-to-be submission to spur clarification where requested. We will not submit this before the one-month mark from the initial posting of this bill, but it will likely be imminent beyond that.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Parasite is such a strong word for such kindly individuals... er... friends, friend as yourselves. Yourself!"

And whereas the resolution contains a necessary clause exempting certain kinds of organizations from these freedoms, but the relevant clause has several issues, including:

1. Limiting organizations that pose a security or criminal threat to be on the national scale prevents protections on a local, provincial, or international scale,
2. Solely focusing on criminal law, when civil law should be equally encouraged to be upheld, lest organizations plan mass defamation of opponents of the organization, or encourage people to violate contractual obligations,
3. Not including a definition of "hate", which may very well lead malicious nations to apply this exception to groups exhibiting a strong message against benign social or political movements, or reasonably being applied against particularly vocal protest groups,

"I agree with your overall argument here. How could we have failed to notice that GA #550 does not expressly permit criminal penalties for organizations engaging in international crime. The Assembly must have been bedazzled by brevity disguised as wit that day. A true mistake that we should remedy!"

"I didn't think the message about going after hate groups was particularly problematic and I would not have pursued that as a basis for repeal, but I also wouldn't quibble with your point that it's poorly defined."

And whereas the resolution fails to provide any comment on association of politicians or other political leaders that would cause a conflict of interests, meaning that nations or localities cannot properly hold their leaders accountable,

"I am not sure what kind of comment you're referring to, or what you believe the target resolution should have said about politicians. What point is being made here is rather lost on me."

And whereas upon repeal, the general premises of this resolution will continue to be upheld by General Assembly Resolution #436, "Protecting Free Expression", and General Assembly Resolution #537, "Right to Assemble", which adequately cover the points made by the target when taken in tandem,

And whereas harmful redundancy should be minimized when possible,

Therefore, be it resolved by the World Assembly that General Assembly Resolution #550, "Freedom of Association" is repealed and thus is no longer enforceable.

"We support this endeavor."

[The Serendipitous]

And whereas the resolution fails to provide any comment on association of politicians or other political leaders that would cause a conflict of interests, meaning that nations or localities cannot properly hold their leaders accountable,

"I am not sure what kind of comment you're referring to, or what you believe the target resolution should have said about politicians. What point is being made here is rather lost on me."

"The intention of this clause is to note that there is no exception made for politicians attempting to associate with an individual or group of individuals that would be a conflict of interest to their role. For example, a member of a democratic nation's legislature being a member of a pro-fracking organization, as they serve on an environmental committee. We do not believe it is the World Assembly's place to wholly outlaw such associations, but it is reasonable to allow members to restrict those associations on their own. We have rephrased the clause to hopefully be more clear."

"Parasite is such a strong word for such kindly individuals... er... friends, friend as yourselves. Yourself!"

The mammalian looks particularly pleased at this comment. Not in unison, surprisingly, it says:

"Such kind words. Perhaps one day you would like to join us and our collective. I could see to it."

[Lakeside Valley]

"Young man, you are delegating a nation which has neither joined the World Assembly nor been supported-endorsed by at least two other nations in its region."

We would have to agree with this statement. While the resolution is perfectly fine, besides being incredibly confusing and hard to read, we still believe the nation proposing it should ideally have a little more experience in the WA before proposing a resolution. Or perhaps, at least have a few endorsements. Or perhaps, be in the WA in the first place.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

“As far as I can recall these debate halls have always been open to delegations from visiting nonmember nations. I am sure our Serendipitous friends are aware of the legal requirements for submitting proposed WA law for a vote. I have no doubt their paperwork is ready and they have two endorsing nations lined up in case they decide to join the World Assembly to legally submit their proposal.”

“Or, I suppose, passing the work off to a Member Nation for submission or establishing a WA Mission are also equally acceptable past practices, although personally we frown on the implications of the later.”

“Anyway, I hardly think their current nonmember status is a basis for declining to engage on the merits of this subject. But to each their own I suppose.”

[Goobergunchia]

While we generally agree with the ambassador from Princess Rainbow Sparkles, we see little reason to consider a repeal of Freedom of Association if a clearly superior replacement is not on the table.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[The Serendipitous]

While we generally agree with the ambassador from Princess Rainbow Sparkles, we see little reason to consider a repeal of Freedom of Association if a clearly superior replacement is not on the table.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

"If the World Assembly wishes to waste its time forming a resolution which is already adequately covered by other resolutions, it may feel free to do so. We do not see why that is a point to oppose this repeal now, if it leads to innovation moving forth."

[Hulldom]

I think you’re missing something sort of key here: it did fill a niche that hadn’t been dealt with before in WA law. Freedom of assembly, which had been guaranteed, ≠freedom of association.