[DEFEATED] Freedom of Opinion and Belief

[Simone Republic]

This proposal was submitted but only got 46 of the ~55 approvals required. The thread tag therefore remains accurate: I am planning a third submission for October 6th.

To be honest I still don't understand what this resolution is trying to do in reality.

[Cessarea]

This proposal was submitted but only got 46 of the ~55 approvals required. The thread tag therefore remains accurate: I am planning a third submission for October 6th.

To be honest I still don't understand what this resolution is trying to do in reality.

Banning thoughtcrimes, I guess? Thing is that this resolution is trying to say that - as a mere example - someone being homophobic cannot be discriminated against solely for being homophobic, but they can still be charged with a crime if they express their homophobic views. Honestly, this is an empty resolution that does nothing, unless the WA is worried about the police using mindreading devices to see who does and does not harbour criminal thoughts.

[Tinhampton]

This does Defund the Thought Police, yes.

[Juansonia]

This does Defund the Thought Police, yes.

I Expect the Orwell Society to vote against.

[New Westmore]

The Democratic Republic of New Westmore will be voting against this resolution. We find that this resolution, along with its provisions or substantial lack thereof, are too brief and at worst seem to be of a contradictory nature due to the very fact that this resolution in our eyes is worded poorly. Furthermore, while our country prides itself in upholding the right to freedom of speech within reason, the fact that this proposal from what we could discern seems to outlaw any restriction of the freedom of speech is of great concern to us, as this could possibly mean that all speech is allowed, even the kind that discriminates or threatens the safety, wellbeing and existence of others.

While we are generally in good favour to any proposal the Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton writes to the World Assembly due for their propensity to normally be of high quality and of practicality, we believe that this proposal is awful and is a polar opposite of our expectations of the Tinhamptonese delegation. We are mildly disappointed in this blunder from Tinhampton, and we hope to see better resolutions written in the future, with all due respect.

Signed,
Adam Madeus Spielberg, President of New Westmore
Delano Kennedy Edgar, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Delegate to the World Assembly

[Tinhampton]

The Democratic Republic of New Westmore will be voting against this resolution. We find that this resolution, along with its provisions or substantial lack thereof, are too brief and at worst seem to be of a contradictory nature due to the very fact that this resolution in our eyes is worded poorly. Furthermore, while our country prides itself in upholding the right to freedom of speech within reason, the fact that this proposal from what we could discern seems to outlaw any restriction of the freedom of speech is of great concern to us, as this could possibly mean that all speech is allowed, even the kind that discriminates or threatens the safety, wellbeing and existence of others.

While we are generally in good favour to any proposal the Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton writes to the World Assembly due for their propensity to normally be of high quality and of practicality, we believe that this proposal is awful and is a polar opposite of our expectations of the Tinhamptonese delegation. We are mildly disappointed in this blunder from Tinhampton, and we hope to see better resolutions written in the future, with all due respect.

Signed,
Adam Madeus Spielberg, President of New Westmore
Delano Kennedy Edgar, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Delegate to the World Assembly

This proposal is not about "freedom of speech." A quick look over Article c will confirm this. Any resolution that tries to "outlaw any restriction of the freedom of speech" will violate multiple resolutions.

[New Westmore]

The Democratic Republic of New Westmore will be voting against this resolution. We find that this resolution, along with its provisions or substantial lack thereof, are too brief and at worst seem to be of a contradictory nature due to the very fact that this resolution in our eyes is worded poorly. Furthermore, while our country prides itself in upholding the right to freedom of speech within reason, the fact that this proposal from what we could discern seems to outlaw any restriction of the freedom of speech is of great concern to us, as this could possibly mean that all speech is allowed, even the kind that discriminates or threatens the safety, wellbeing and existence of others.

While we are generally in good favour to any proposal the Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton writes to the World Assembly due for their propensity to normally be of high quality and of practicality, we believe that this proposal is awful and is a polar opposite of our expectations of the Tinhamptonese delegation. We are mildly disappointed in this blunder from Tinhampton, and we hope to see better resolutions written in the future, with all due respect.

Signed,
Adam Madeus Spielberg, President of New Westmore
Delano Kennedy Edgar, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Delegate to the World Assembly

This proposal is not about "freedom of speech." A quick look over Article c will confirm this. Any resolution that tries to "outlaw any restriction of the freedom of speech" will violate multiple resolutions.

After re-reading the proposal, we still officially maintain our stance against this proposal due to its poor structure and to multiple other points raised by other delegates that this proposal does not change anything in the grand scheme of things.

[Kunskil]

The writing of this proposal might not have been the best but I'm calling all left wingers to preserve civil rights by voting FORin this proposal. Not brain washing the populace has always been a constitutional right in every country besides the extreme extreme Right and Left. So, Im also calling for all Center and Center Right nations to voteFOR aswell

[Wallenburg]

The writing of this proposal might not have been the best but I'm calling all left wingers to preserve civil rights by voting FORin this proposal. Freedom of speech has always been a constitutional right in every country besides the extreme extreme Right and Left. So, Im also calling for all Center and Center Right nations to voteFOR aswell

"Ambassador, this does nothing to protect free speech, and in fact makes as clear as possible that it does not do so. I will assist you in reporting your office's noncompliance with GAR #122 to the gnomes."

[Wizlandia]

Opposed. The Federal Republic of Wizlandia recognises freedom of expression as a fundamental right of all persons. This resolution is a half-measure at best, and would only serve to legitimise the restrictions on speech by authoritarian nations.

[Cessarea]

The writing of this proposal might not have been the best but I'm calling all left wingers to preserve civil rights by voting FORin this proposal. Freedom of speech has always been a constitutional right in every country besides the extreme extreme Right and Left. So, Im also calling for all Center and Center Right nations to voteFOR aswell

"Ambassador, this does nothing to protect free speech, and in fact makes as clear as possible that it does not do so. I will assist you in reporting your office's noncompliance with GAR #122 to the gnomes."

Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy, seeing this curt exchange between Delegates, hushed to himself quietly:

"Yet another reason for that repeal of resolution 122..."

After this, he slightly elevated his levitating chair to speak, a neat trick he learned in lieu of standing up:

"The proposal is perfectly fine. But I'm... compelled by precedent of WA legislation to want something of more substance. Are we sure that this minor point cannot be annexed to any other points? After all, if we begin accepting such small topics for resolutions, we'll find ourselves with plenty of extra work when we inevitably begin repealing them. I'll vote in favour of this proposal, if only for its technical acceptability, but I perfectly understand why it has received no sympathy from the average member nation."

Opposed. Wizlandia recognises freedom of expression as a fundamental right of all persons. This resolution is a half-measure at best, and would only serve to legitimise the restrictions on speech by authoritarian nations.

"May I note, Delegate, that the World Assembly already has law on free speech. Namely, resolution 436 on free expression; 654, the Civil Charter of the Assembly; 644, on press freedoms; 635 on religious freedom; and 550 on freedom of association. There are more, but these are a few of the examples I bothered to parse through. If you observe any nation that is in violation of these resolutions, you may report them to the Assembly's Compliance Commission for swift action."

[Cachard Calia]

"Due to the fact that this resolution has no significant drawbacks, and ensures that no nation can persecute people for what they are believed to think, we are voting FOR."

[Nalver And]

"We believe in the freedom of speech and the freeing nature of living beings, however this resolution has nothing backing it nor does it do anything except protecting hatred and/or hateful opinions towards society, as we hereby vote AGAINST"

Council of The Constellation, with the Outer Communications Council

[Aldreaian States]

it is quite saddenning how much this is getting voted against (not surprising tho)

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I voted against the proposal based on the preamble. It’s simply not an adequate explanation of why the General Assembly has decided to take legislative action to the extent demonstrated in the active clauses. With the active clauses, I had no particular issue.)

[Schnegroland]

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."

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
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.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
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.

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)
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.

no rights, only control, i love apartheid nazbol isis ancap confederacy. dictatorship YAY

[Verdant Haven]

"I find myself somewhat surprised at the lack of support this resolution is receiving, and believe it to be a function of the fact that many people don't actually read, comprehend, or think about what they are voting on. People see an extremely short proposal, without all the desperately breathy rigamarole of faux-legalese, and they think it must do nothing. In fact, I am convinced that if passed, this would be one of the single most powerful civil rights resolutions ever to grace the General Assembly. In particular, clause A "forbids member states from criminalising... the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic."

"That statement in and of itself would prohibit any and all criminalization of basis of race, gender, sexuality, color, age, disability, national origin, or any other such characteristic. Whilst the title and other clauses of the proposal seem to address only thought crime, this portion of clause A is otherwise unqualified, and would set the bar for civil rights on a global scale at a level we could all speak of with pride. Many of these are topics that are usually strongly supported by WA voters. I suspect the power of this clause is not clear to the voting public."

[Cessarea]

"I find myself somewhat surprised at the lack of support this resolution is receiving, and believe it to be a function of the fact that many people don't actually read, comprehend, or think about what they are voting on. People see an extremely short proposal, without all the desperately breathy rigamarole of faux-legalese, and they think it must do nothing. In fact, I am convinced that if passed, this would be one of the single most powerful civil rights resolutions ever to grace the General Assembly. In particular, clause A "forbids member states from criminalising... the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic."

"That statement in and of itself would prohibit any and all criminalization of basis of race, gender, sexuality, color, age, disability, national origin, or any other such characteristic. Whilst the title and other clauses of the proposal seem to address only thought crime, this portion of clause A is otherwise unqualified, and would set the bar for civil rights on a global scale at a level we could all speak of with pride. Many of these are topics that are usually strongly supported by WA voters. I suspect the power of this clause is not clear to the voting public."

Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy read through a few texts projected holographically in front of him as the Delegate spoke. As he was finished, he brushed off the blueish holograms with a dismissive wave of his right hand and began to speak:

"It will please the Delegate to know, then, that this Assembly has already passed legislation on the matter of discrimination. I will refer to resolution 35, which explicitly states that:

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Clause A does nothing but restate that which is already mandated by law. This clause is powerless, because it brings forth no innovation. The only thing that this proposal would do is prohibit member nations from criminalising... thoughtcrimes."

[The Ice States]

"I find myself somewhat surprised at the lack of support this resolution is receiving, and believe it to be a function of the fact that many people don't actually read, comprehend, or think about what they are voting on. People see an extremely short proposal, without all the desperately breathy rigamarole of faux-legalese, and they think it must do nothing. In fact, I am convinced that if passed, this would be one of the single most powerful civil rights resolutions ever to grace the General Assembly. In particular, clause A "forbids member states from criminalising... the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic."

"That statement in and of itself would prohibit any and all criminalization of basis of race, gender, sexuality, color, age, disability, national origin, or any other such characteristic. Whilst the title and other clauses of the proposal seem to address only thought crime, this portion of clause A is otherwise unqualified, and would set the bar for civil rights on a global scale at a level we could all speak of with pride. Many of these are topics that are usually strongly supported by WA voters. I suspect the power of this clause is not clear to the voting public."

Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy read through a few texts projected holographically in front of him as the Delegate spoke. As he was finished, he dismissed the blueish holograms with a dismissive wave of his right hand and began to speak:

"It will please the Delegate to know, then, that this Assembly has already passed legislation on the matter of discrimination. I will refer to resolution 35, which explicitly states that:

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Clause A does nothing but restate that which is already mandated by law. This clause is powerless, because it brings forth no innovation. The only thing that this proposal would do is prohibit member nations from criminalising... thoughtcrimes."

"I cannot necessarily speak for my colleague from Verdant Haven, Ambassador, however the Eternal Union's mission has long believed that The Charter of Civil Rights is an ineffective resolution which fails to enact substantive protections for minority classes. A member nation need only claim some 'compelling practical purpose' for its discrimination to be compliant with that resolution. The resolution we are voting on here contains no such exception; it is therefore not open to this form of exploitation. The blanket ban on criminalising minority status, in effect, closes one loophole resulting from the 'compelling practical purpose' exception in #35."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Cessarea]

Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy read through a few texts projected holographically in front of him as the Delegate spoke. As he was finished, he dismissed the blueish holograms with a dismissive wave of his right hand and began to speak:

"It will please the Delegate to know, then, that this Assembly has already passed legislation on the matter of discrimination. I will refer to resolution 35, which explicitly states that:

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Clause A does nothing but restate that which is already mandated by law. This clause is powerless, because it brings forth no innovation. The only thing that this proposal would do is prohibit member nations from criminalising... thoughtcrimes."

"I cannot necessarily speak for my colleague from Verdant Haven, Ambassador, however the Eternal Union's mission has long believed that The Charter of Civil Rights is an ineffective resolution which fails to enact substantive protections for minority classes. A member nation need only claim some 'compelling practical purpose' for its discrimination to be compliant with that resolution. The resolution we are voting on here contains no such exception; it is therefore not open to this form of exploitation. The blanket ban on criminalising minority status, in effect, closes one loophole resulting from the 'compelling practical purpose' exception in #35."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"Wonderful!" Said the Minister, clasping his hands together with a loud, mechanical thunk. "Let us draft, submit, and pass a repeal of resolution 35, followed by a swift replacement that takes that into account this loophole and furthermore prohibits the criminalisation of thoughtcrimes. If the major reasoning for passing this resolution is that it closes one of several loopholes contained in previous legislation, I will feel compelled to vote against establishing this precedent. Otherwise, we are condemned to approve some 5 extra pieces of legislation on this matter, with the exact same length, for the purpose of closing these loopholes. This, again, falls into my suggestion of perhaps attaching this small point into a greater effort. As it stands, I cannot blame the voters for not being keen on seeing more micro-laws on the floor of this Assembly.

I'll be very clear that the length itself is of no concern to me: but I am concerned about how specific and detached the topic of the proposal is. And since it partially covers for loopholes in other resolutions, I do not see why a repeal and replace is not an option. More tiresome, for sure, but certainly more in line with what I've come to expect in this Assembly."

[The Ice States]

"I cannot necessarily speak for my colleague from Verdant Haven, Ambassador, however the Eternal Union's mission has long believed that The Charter of Civil Rights is an ineffective resolution which fails to enact substantive protections for minority classes. A member nation need only claim some 'compelling practical purpose' for its discrimination to be compliant with that resolution. The resolution we are voting on here contains no such exception; it is therefore not open to this form of exploitation. The blanket ban on criminalising minority status, in effect, closes one loophole resulting from the 'compelling practical purpose' exception in #35."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

"Wonderful!" Said the Minister, clasping his hands together with a loud, mechanical thunk. "Let us draft, submit, and pass a repeal of resolution 35, followed by a swift replacement that takes that into account this loophole and furthermore prohibits the criminalisation of thoughtcrimes. If the major reasoning for passing this resolution is that it closes one of several loopholes contained in previous legislation, I will feel compelled to vote against establishing this precedent. Otherwise, we are condemned to approve some 5 extra pieces of legislation on this matter, with the exact same length, for the purpose of closing these loopholes. This, again, falls into my suggestion of perhaps attaching this small point into a greater effort. As it stands, I cannot blame the voters for not being keen on seeing more micro-laws on the floor of this Assembly.

I'll be very clear that the length itself is of no concern to me: but how specific and detached the topic of the proposal is. And since it partially covers for loopholes in other resolutions, I do not see why a repeal and replace is not an option. More tiresome, for sure, but certainly more in line with what I've come to expect in this Assembly."

"This is a reasonable point, Ambassador. While we have voted for as we are persuaded by the argument to prohibit what some representatives here have described as...'thought crime', we would also support a repeal of Resolution #35 if proposed to these chambers."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Otaku Stratus]

Dumb as this is, it's the most I've agreed with a WA resolution in years. This is how far we've fallen, that we need to defend the right to opinion. And it's losing.



yes yes it's losing because the resolution is low-effort. but still.

[Stella Nera]

Why is this being downvoted its literally a thing to stop thoughtcrime either this is the result of trolls or we live in 1984 now
Its honestly surprising how many people don't want this

[The Great Lord Fail]

I voted against it not because I disagree with it, but because it does not properly define its terms.
The proposal does not define brainwashing, nor does it explain why it is "bad and wrong" (while I agree that it is so, the resolution should explain it rather than working on an assumption of common knowledge).

[The Ice States]

I voted against it not because I disagree with it, but because it does not properly define its terms.
The proposal does not define brainwashing, nor does it explain why it is "bad and wrong" (while I agree that it is so, the resolution should explain it rather than working on an assumption of common knowledge).

The term brainwashing is not used outside of the preamble. Therefore it need not be defined, as its meaning has no policy effect -- "brainwashing" could mean the practice of literally washing brains and the resolution would have the exact same effect.