[ditched]

[Covenstone]

If people are really going to compare paedophilia and bestiality to homosexuality and transgender men and women then The WA is really not the place I thought it was.

[Christian Democrats]

Really? This proposal would require, for example, churches to start ordaining women.

Also, from a legal standpoint, restrictions on state action seem to fit best in the Human Rights category while restrictions on private action seem to fit best in the Moral Decency category or the Social Justice category (depending on the specifics).

EDIT: Subsection 2(c) would violate the resolution Freedom of Expression (#30).

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Really? This proposal would require, for example, churches to start ordaining women.

Also, from a legal standpoint, restrictions on state action seem to fit best in the Human Rights category while restrictions on private action seem to fit best in the Moral Decency category or the Social Justice category (depending on the specifics).

EDIT: Subsection 2(c) would violate the resolution Freedom of Expression (#30).

OOC: Even though GA#30 contains the following exception?

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Bolded material relevant. I'd consider that to pretty much cover the general legal definition of hate speech in most parts of the world. At most, I'd argue that this proposal requires hate speech to be defined as such to fix the legality issue.

[Christian Democrats]

EDIT: Subsection 2(c) would violate the resolution Freedom of Expression (#30).

OOC: Even though GA#30 contains the following exception?

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Bolded material relevant. I'd consider that to pretty much cover the legal definition of hate speech.

I don't know what "the legal definition of hate speech" is, but the American Bar Association (OOC) defines hate speech as "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

As I understand Freedom of Expression, it does not permit nations to ban speech for being offensive or insulting.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

OOC: Even though GA#30 contains the following exception?


Bolded material relevant. I'd consider that to pretty much cover the legal definition of hate speech.

I don't know what "the legal definition of hate speech" is, but the American Bar Association (OOC) defines hate speech as "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

As I understand Freedom of Expression, it does not permit nations to ban speech for being offensive or insulting.

OOC: Then Freedom of Expression also dismantles harassment legislation under your interpretation.

[Kizja]

2c seems far overbroad. For instance, let us take it for granted that Mein Kampf is hate speech. That being said, there are also valid and commendable reasons for a private institution, such as a republishing firm, to publish Mein Kampf. For instance, students of history may wish to read it to gain insight into its author's mindset. 2c would ban that option, without good reason.

While it is arguably valid to ban State and Private Sector groups from espousing hate speech, they should not be banned from publishing that speech.

---

Separately, the definition in the draft defines State and Private Sector individuals, whereas the use of the terms is in each case in the context of a "State or Private Sector group". The definitions should therefore define such a group instead.

[Separatist Peoples]

[box]
2. Mandates that,
a. No State or Private Sector group may discriminate against a citizen of The World Assembly on the basis of gender, sex or sexuality under any circumstances, except where it is a functional requirement of the situation (such as a shelter for battered women forbidding access to men and not hiring men, or segregating public bathrooms based on sex and/or gender)

"Ok, let me play devil's advocate here. Priests can't be men, as a feminine gender is a functional part of being a priest per our holy scripture. Women can't serve in the military, as it is distracting to the predominantly male units. If you're going to allow shelters to bar men from access, regardless of the actual harm a man may or may not cause, you can say the same thing about basically any other gender requirement. Not saying I agree, but its a weakness of the wording."

b. All citizens of The World Assembly have the right to determine their own sexuality, sex and gender throughout their life, without the influence (either direct or indirect) of any State or Private Sector group,

"This bars anybody from having a moral opinion regarding sexuality, sex, or gender and expressing it, as indirect influence is a tenuous thing. What is indirect influence? Overhearing a discussion between one's parents regarding their opinion of the immorality of homosexuality? Regardless of any intent to be overheard, that could be an indirect influence. And even if that isn't the case, why do people not have the right to voice their opinions publicly when they are not threatening? The entire point of the free exchange of ideas is to influence people, and here you are taking entire swathes of belief away. Whether or not those beliefs match our personal views shouldn't be relevant here."

c. No State or Private Sector group may publish material that would qualify as hate speech under national or international laws.

"Why? Unless that speech actively threatens violence, why should we prevent it? What qualifies as hate speech, anyway? Is a polite disagreement hate speech? We've already seen that influence can mean anything, so why not hate speech?"

3. Allows that,
a. Nothing in this act prevents states from enacting further laws to ensure equal rights for people of all sexes, genders and sexualities,

"This is a grammatically nonsensical clause. If a is a continuation of 3, then you have written "Allows that nothing prevents states from enacting further laws," when you could have said "Nothing prevents states from enacting further laws. . .

"All in all, this resolution rides roughshod over the concept that the free exchange of ideas is in any way valuable unless the ideas conform to the author's point of view, and this delegation cannot accept that reasoning. The Confederate Dominion holds the freedom of expression and speech far over one's freedom not to be offended, upset, or otherwise exposed to unpleasantness, and cannot accept a proposal that defecates upon this policy. We stand opposed."

OOC: Convention on Gender covers 2.b., despite phrasing it as a negative right to be free from government coercion. Freedom of Expression also does not provide sufficient exceptions to the requirement that states allow "all people [the right] to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal[.]" As such, I don't see how 2.c is not also illegal. The only legal and substantive clause left is 2.a, which the current CoCR does more effectively. In light of these irreparable failings, I wonder what the actual point of this is?

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

Provision for Rights, Independence, Determination and Equality Act.

Seretis, after an extended bout of whispering between himself and Feren, manages to begin the Imperial Statement; "This title is longer than allowed by the Secretariat, I believe. And it's shorter form is rather... irrelevant."

c. No State or Private Sector group may publish material that would qualify as hate speech under national or international laws.

"While we understand the intent behind this clause, the Imperium must note that this would prohibit the publishing of quite a bit of literature with genuine historical and educational value. Pre-Genocide Imperial works regarding the Aeravahn Government and Species, both produced privately, and by the Imperial Government of the time; for example, often utilize information and imagery that would now be restricted under such laws.

The display and understanding of these works is critical to understanding the past and the mistakes made; quite simply, Ambassador, we have these laws for a reason, and we believe it best that our citizens understand this reason, rather than merely being told that it exists."

3. Allows that,
a. Nothing in this act prevents states from enacting further laws to ensure equal rights for people of all sexes, genders and sexualities,

"The Imperium will concur with the delegation of the Confederate Dominion that this clause is improperly constructed."
OOC:

OOC: Freedom of Expression also does not provide sufficient exceptions to the requirement that states allow "all people [the right] to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal[.]" As such, I don't see how 2.c is not also illegal.

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent [...] incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization;

Hate Speech can easily be considered an incitement to violence, whether they're saying "All [Insert Slur Here] should be rounded up and shot" or "All [Insert Slur Here] spend their days doing nothing but attacking our [Women/Children/Ect.]" Whether the angry mob that results calls itself a Lynch Mob, or an Race Protection Squad, doesn't really matter once they start lynching people.

[Finswedeway]

In its' current state, this is unlikely to be passed without HUGE revisions; including and especially considering how vague "hate speech," is. Its' biggest problem, through my rather narrow point of view, is that it restricts too heavily on private businesses and could easily be "misread" to completely hinder those freedoms.

[Attempted Socialism]

Really? This proposal would require, for example, churches to start ordaining women.

"I agree, this is a clear improvement over current resolutions.
We will go through the whole draft with the Executive Committee today. And my personal apologies for casting aspersions on your dedication to ensure further civil rights."

[Covenstone]

Really? This proposal would require, for example, churches to start ordaining women.

And?

Also, from a legal standpoint, restrictions on state action seem to fit best in the Human Rights category while restrictions on private action seem to fit best in the Moral Decency category or the Social Justice category (depending on the specifics).

EDIT: Subsection 2(c) would violate the resolution Freedom of Expression (#30).

Pretty Sure GAR #30 has a definition of hate speech in it. Stuff that calls for the incitement of violence, death, gore, mayhem, chaos, toads falling from the sky and so forth.

Hence the term "under international law."

[Covenstone]

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

(from GAR #30 - Freedom of Expression.)

This was what I was considering as "international law" in the draft, which I understood to cover the written word as well as the spoken word (because otherwise it is oddly worded.) I would also assume it deals with historic publications as well, such as religious texts, manifestos of previous national leaders who wanted to wipe out all witches or elves, because otherwise a lot of people will already have been breaking the law.

Whether this would lead to a House of Cards issue is another question, but I think that in dealing with international law it should cover it.

I realise most religious texts are filled with the most appalling examples of hate speech, but under current international law, they are either banned already, or they aren't, so how would this make any difference?

[Bears Armed]

"And you regard this as a higher priority than banning unreasonable discrimination on the basis of species or race?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Exactly what is a "citizen of the World Assembly"? Are you speaking of the gnomes?

[Covenstone]

"And you regard this as a higher priority than banning unreasonable discrimination on the basis of species or race?"

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

Why not?

If recent decisions are to be believed, species is apparently not covered by CofCR anyway so it's not like I am depriving The WA of anything, and if recent proposals are to go by there seems to be a concerted attempt to screw over the LGBT community more than there is to be racist.

ARI: Exactly what is a "citizen of the World Assembly"? Are you speaking of the gnomes?

Someone who is a citizen of a nation in The World Assembly. How is that not clear? Although as I was falling asleep last night, I realised that it doesn't include visitors from non-member nations who are visiting member nations which could prove problematic, but that issue aside it would stop any arguments about whether Nation A can discriminate against Nation B, because if both nations are Member Nations then ALL of their citizens are Citizens of The WA and as a result even if Citizen B is in Nation A then Nation A can't discriminate against them.

[Bears Armed]

Someone who is a citizen of a nation in The World Assembly. How is that not clear?

No, it isn't. As the WA is an international organisation, not a nation, it doesn't have 'citizens' of its own unless & until a resolution specifically defines them. Using the term would allow nations to say, quite legitimately, that as their peoples aren't 'WA citizens' this proposed resolution doesn't apply to them.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Exactly what is a "citizen of the World Assembly"? Are you speaking of the gnomes?

Someone who is a citizen of a nation in The World Assembly. How is that not clear?

ARI: It's... it's not. We Wads are not citizens of the World Assembly, we are citizens of Wrapper.

Although as I was falling asleep last night, I realised that it doesn't include visitors from non-member nations who are visiting member nations which could prove problematic, but that issue aside it would stop any arguments about whether Nation A can discriminate against Nation B, because if both nations are Member Nations then ALL of their citizens are Citizens of The WA and as a result even if Citizen B is in Nation A then Nation A can't discriminate against them.

ARI: Well perhaps you should use the word inhabitants. Which... is... precisely the word that CoCR uses. You know, the more we delve into this, the more we're convinced that CoCR needs no replacement.

[Covenstone]

<ooc>While I loathe doing this, it seems the easiest way.

EU Citizenship is current used to describe ANY citizen of a member state of the EU. This is not just my definition, this is generally accepted across the EU.

I can write this definition into the proposal if it makes people feel better, and make it apply just for the proposal rather than making it a hallowed term for the rest of time. </ooc>

[Greater Cesnica]

On the assumption that The Charter of Civil Rights would be repealed, this would be a replacement for a part of it.

As the title suggests, it is an incredibly rough draft, and given I haven't read all 400 previous resolutions, there is every chance it might duplicate some of them

Provision for Rights, Independence, Determination and Equality Act.

Category : Civil Rights
Strength : Significant

Understanding that civil rights are an important part of The World Assembly's mission,

However noting that in protecting rights in the area of sexuality, it is somewhat lacking,

The World Assembly hereby :-

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution,
a) "The State" as the government of a nation, and any person carrying out their duties while acting as an employee or representative of said government,
b) "Private Sector" as any employee, owner or representative of a business or non-for-profit group, including charities, religions and religious groups and any other commercial or non-for-profit group that is not part of "The State" while interacting with a member of the public on behalf of said group.

2. Mandates that,
a. No State or Private Sector group may discriminate against a citizen of The World Assembly on the basis of gender, sex or sexuality under any circumstances, except where it is a functional requirement of the situation (such as a shelter for battered women forbidding access to men and not hiring men, or segregating public bathrooms based on sex and/or gender)
b. All citizens of The World Assembly have the right to determine their own sexuality, sex and gender throughout their life, without the influence (either direct or indirect) of any State or Private Sector group,
c. No State or Private Sector group may publish material that would qualify as hate speech under national or international laws.

3. Allows that,
a. Nothing in this act prevents states from enacting further laws to ensure equal rights for people of all sexes, genders and sexualities,

[spoiler=Notes on Draft 1]

As I said, this is a very rough draft, and I suspect the way it is phrased is going to annoy a few people, and there is every chance that Clause 3b possibly violates the Convention on Gender in some way (though I am not sure how) but it is the best that I can do for now.

My basic aims were to stop discrimination (2a) except where there might be a requirement for it (as the examples provide, or for example changing rooms at a swimming pool), and to stop people trying to force a sexuality on someone (2b). However in neither of these cases do I go so far as to limit family/friends because I thought that might be taking it a step too far

And since there are nations out there that are more liberal than others, I did not want to limit them to the rules laid down in here (3a).

I initially planned to include an exemption clause for Private Groups, but I couldn't figure out how to word it so as to not permit a Private Group to allow exemptions all the time. If anyone has any advice on that, I will be glad to listen.

The shitstorm has commenced.

[Greater Cesnica]

Someone who is a citizen of a nation in The World Assembly. How is that not clear?

ARI: It's... it's not. We Wads are not citizens of the World Assembly, we are citizens of Wrapper.

Although as I was falling asleep last night, I realised that it doesn't include visitors from non-member nations who are visiting member nations which could prove problematic, but that issue aside it would stop any arguments about whether Nation A can discriminate against Nation B, because if both nations are Member Nations then ALL of their citizens are Citizens of The WA and as a result even if Citizen B is in Nation A then Nation A can't discriminate against them.

ARI: Well perhaps you should use the word inhabitants. Which... is... precisely the word that CoCR uses. You know, the more we delve into this, the more we're convinced that CoCR needs no replacement.

You are a citizen of a nation which has World Assembly membership, by the provisions of the WA, you are required to follow any legislation passed by it's two chambers.

[Tinfect]

<ooc>While I loathe doing this, it seems the easiest way.

EU Citizenship is current used to describe ANY citizen of a member state of the EU. This is not just my definition, this is generally accepted across the EU.

I can write this definition into the proposal if it makes people feel better, and make it apply just for the proposal rather than making it a hallowed term for the rest of time. </ooc>

OOC:
Or you could just, you know, refer to them as 'Citizens of a Member-State', or 'Inhabitants of a Member-State', like every other resolution rather than fabricate a dual-citizenship wholecloth. I should also probably note that many Member-States prohibit dual-citizenship, including the Imperium.

You are a citizen of a nation which has World Assembly membership, by the provisions of the WA, you are required to follow any legislation passed by it's two chambers.

The Security Council does not exist for the purposes of the GA, and doesn't pass any actual law anyhow. And literally none of that has anything to do with anything the Wads said anyhow.

[United Massachusetts]

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

(from GAR #30 - Freedom of Expression.)

This was what I was considering as "international law" in the draft, which I understood to cover the written word as well as the spoken word (because otherwise it is oddly worded.) I would also assume it deals with historic publications as well, such as religious texts, manifestos of previous national leaders who wanted to wipe out all witches or elves, because otherwise a lot of people will already have been breaking the law.

Whether this would lead to a House of Cards issue is another question, but I think that in dealing with international law it should cover it.

I realise most religious texts are filled with the most appalling examples of hate speech, but under current international law, they are either banned already, or they aren't, so how would this make any difference?

It is a House of Cards Violation, as the resolution falls apart without it. I'll pour through this soon--I haven't had much WA time lately

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

EU Citizenship is current used to describe ANY citizen of a member state of the EU. This is not just my definition, this is generally accepted across the EU.

OOC: If you're looking for a real world analogy, do you consider yourself a "citizen of the United Nations"? It's a nonsensical term.

The shitstorm has commenced.

ARI: Really? (looks out the window) We were unaware that it rains feces here, especially this time of year. Wad Ahume! Fetch our ponchos, quickly.

You are a citizen of a nation which has World Assembly membership, by the provisions of the WA, you are required to follow any legislation passed by it's two chambers.

ARI: Yes? But? So? Therefore? That fact has nothing to do with the erroneous nomenclature used in the draft.

It is a House of Cards Violation, as the resolution falls apart without it.

ARI: We disagree. Should GAR#30 be repealed, clause 2c still stands on its own.

[Covenstone]

EU Citizenship is current used to describe ANY citizen of a member state of the EU. This is not just my definition, this is generally accepted across the EU.

OOC: If you're looking for a real world analogy, do you consider yourself a "citizen of the United Nations"? It's a nonsensical term.

<ooc>Looking at it from that perspective, I take your point I will think about another way to achieve the same ends, because a part of the reason for repealing CofCR is the debate about nations vs WA wide rights, and I am determined to find a way round it!</ooc>

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

(from GAR #30 - Freedom of Expression.)

This was what I was considering as "international law" in the draft, which I understood to cover the written word as well as the spoken word (because otherwise it is oddly worded.) I would also assume it deals with historic publications as well, such as religious texts, manifestos of previous national leaders who wanted to wipe out all witches or elves, because otherwise a lot of people will already have been breaking the law.

Whether this would lead to a House of Cards issue is another question, but I think that in dealing with international law it should cover it.

I realise most religious texts are filled with the most appalling examples of hate speech, but under current international law, they are either banned already, or they aren't, so how would this make any difference?

It is a House of Cards Violation, as the resolution falls apart without it. I'll pour through this soon--I haven't had much WA time lately

How? I am not QUOTING that, I am just referring to "international law." And since I am fairly sure several dozen other resolutions refer to "international law" then either every resolution that does is in violation of the House of Cards law, or this one isn't.

If GAR #30 gets repealed, then every nation gets to define Hate Speech on its own, according to my resolution.

Either way, it works.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad believes that this proposal is unnecessary. Almost every single protection it offers is guaranteed by CoCR. The only substantive addition is the proscription on hate speech, which Sciongrad finds to be in conflict with GAR#30. Why does the ambassador from Covenstone believe a repeal and replace is necessary?"