NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Right to Assemble [GAR 27 replacement]

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

[Passed] Right to Assemble [GAR 27 replacement]

Postby Maowi » Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:16 pm

Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Encouraged by extant resolutions to prevent such quashing of protests, including WA#43 "WA Labor Relations Act", guaranteeing workers' rights to form labour unions and engage in strikes, and WA#436 "Protecting Free Expression",

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the most proportionate way of responding to harmful activities as defined in clause 3.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.

  3. Harmful activities, for the purposes of this resolution, are defined as one or more of the following:

    1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals under uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;

    2. unlawful action; and

    3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
  4. It shall not be unlawful to:

    1. plan, assist, or participate in a non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, or

    2. carry out actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
    1. Notwithstanding the above, member states may act to prevent or curtail the advocacy, in non-violent assemblies and associations, of actions or inaction that would constitute:

      1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or

      2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.
    2. Should they refrain from taking action as per clause 5.a. of this resolution, member states must take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of individuals targeted by such advocacy.

Co-authored by Wymondham


OOC: This is intended as a replacement to this repeal of GAR 27, should it pass. Very grateful for any feedback!

Drafts:
Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:

    1. the obstruction of emergency services from being delivered;

    2. the unauthorised use of private property;

    3. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;

    4. the existence of a material threat to private or state property.
  4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly for the purpose of advocating violence or hatred towards an individual or group of individuals.

Co-authored by Wymondham
Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:

    1. the obstruction of vehicular traffic or the delivery of emergency services;

    2. the prevention of normal governance of the member state;

    3. the unauthorised use of private property;

    4. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;

    5. the existence of a material threat to private or state property.
  4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:

    1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or

    2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Co-authored by Wymondham
Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:

    1. the obstruction of vehicular traffic or the delivery of emergency services;

    2. the prevention of normal governance of the member state;

    3. the unauthorised use of private property;

    4. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;

    5. the existence of a material threat to private or state property;

    6. a violation of extant international legislation.
  4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:

    1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or

    2. the physical, verbal, sexual, or emotional abuse of an individual or group of individuals.

Co-authored by Wymondham
Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  3. Member states or private entities may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing one or more of the following:

    1. unlawful action;

    2. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
  4. The act of planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition must not be considered unlawful for the purposes of clause 3 of this resolution.

  5. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:

    1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals,

    2. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or

    3. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham
Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  3. Member states or private entities may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing one or more of the following:

    1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals - member states are required to create uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;

    2. unlawful action; and

    3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
  4. The act of planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition must not be considered unlawful.

  5. Member states may not designate as unlawful actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.

  6. Notwithstanding the above, member states must deny the rights granted to individuals by this resolution in cases where individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction:

    1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or

    2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham
Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clauses 3 and 4 of this resolution.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clauses 3 and 4 of this resolution.

  3. Subject to prior, extant World Assembly law, member states or private entities may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing one or more of the following:

    1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals under uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;

    2. unlawful action; and

    3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
  4. It shall not be unlawful to:

    1. plan, assist, or participate in a non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, or

    2. carry out actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
  5. Notwithstanding the above, member states must forbid non-violent assemblies and associations that have the purpose of advocating for actions or inaction that would constitute:

    1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or

    2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham
Right to Assemble

Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong


The World Assembly,

Believing that the freedom to assemble without undue hindrance is a fundamental right to which all citizens of member nations should be entitled,

Angered that some regimes may attempt to suppress this right in the interest of silencing dissent, to the immense detriment of that nation’s integrity and of its citizens,

Accepting that the right to assemble should not be granted without reserve, and that there are cases in which it must be withheld for the safety of other members of society,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the most proportionate way of responding to harmful activities as defined in clause 3.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, unless doing so is the least restrictive way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.

  3. Harmful activities, for the purposes of this resolution, are defined as one or more of the following:

    1. the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group of individuals under uniformly applied standards defining that which constitutes advocacy of violence;

    2. unlawful action; and

    3. the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
  4. It shall not be unlawful to:

    1. plan, assist, or participate in a non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, or

    2. carry out actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
  5. Notwithstanding the above, member states must forbid non-violent assemblies and associations that have the purpose of advocating for actions or inaction that would constitute:

    1. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or

    2. hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.

Co-authored by Wymondham
Last edited by Maowi on Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:46 am, edited 15 times in total.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 792
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:46 pm

Glad to see this. Just so I'm clear:
  1. This proposal would prevent undue government or private interference in the planning or holding of nonviolent assembly.
  2. This proposal would prevent undue government (not private) retaliation against people for planning, assisting, or participating in nonviolent assembly.
  3. Governments (not private entities) may bend the above two mandates under the conditions of clause 3 (or may choose to continue abiding by said mandates).
  4. This proposal's protections must not be granted under the conditions of clause 4 (a government cannot allow a hate march, for example, even if they'd like to).
  5. This proposal does not legislate on violent assembly in any way.
Is this an accurate interpretation?

Also, would clause 4, specifically "for the purpose of advocating violence or hatred towards an individual or group of individuals," effectively force members to ban anti-establishment protests, such as Occupy Wall Street?

The North Pacific Vice Delegate
Author: 11 GA + 3 SC resolutions, 2 issues, and a lot of drafts

Killer of Stats
Assume OOC

"above the level of needing to be told how English works" - Candlewhisper Archive
"pure legalese" - Araraukar
"barrel of nonsense" - Tinhampton
"Just hurry up and declare a coup" - Honeydewistania
"a joke with no punchline" - Minskiev
"purge me daddy" - Praeceps
GA 496
GA 503 (1st in category)
GA 504
GA 509 (1st in category)
GA 510
GA 512
GA 520
GA 523
GA 527
GA 529
GA 530
GA 535*

SC 318
SC 331
SC 333

Issue 1427
Issue 1433

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2779
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sat Dec 12, 2020 2:54 pm

"Belief seems incredibly weak compared to "any goal, cause, or view" and assembly is weak compared to "peacefully assemble, associate, and protest". Freedom of association is the more important part of the resolution you wish to replace with this.

"Why only private property in 3b? One should not be entitled to hold a protest on the runway at the airport, the overtaking lane on the M3 at rush hour, or inside the spaceship hanger at Area 51.

"I would suspect that most reasonable governments would not permit protestors to rock up to, demand entry and be granted it to protest on the floor of parliament. Or to block the route of a foreign leader during a controversial state visit. Reasonable security should be allowed for.

"It will be interesting to see what sort of document will remain by the time everyone's reasonable exceptions are accounted for. I suspect it won't provide much protection for freedom of assembly at all."
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10161
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Dec 12, 2020 4:15 pm

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We think the Bananamen's remarks ought to be well taken.

Author: 1 SC and 40 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:36 pm

Cretox State wrote:Glad to see this. Just so I'm clear:
  1. This proposal would prevent undue government or private interference in the planning or holding of nonviolent assembly.
  2. This proposal would prevent undue government (not private) retaliation against people for planning, assisting, or participating in nonviolent assembly.
  3. Governments (not private entities) may bend the above two mandates under the conditions of clause 3 (or may choose to continue abiding by said mandates).
  4. This proposal's protections must not be granted under the conditions of clause 4 (a government cannot allow a hate march, for example, even if they'd like to).
  5. This proposal does not legislate on violent assembly in any way.
Is this an accurate interpretation?


OOC: This is an accurate summary (my reasoning for excluding private entities from your second point was not wanting to get into labour rights and strikes etc., as that would be better suited in a separate resolution).

Also, would clause 4, specifically "for the purpose of advocating violence or hatred towards an individual or group of individuals," effectively force members to ban anti-establishment protests, such as Occupy Wall Street?


I do see the point you're making and have modified clause 4 to hopefully match the intention a little better.

Bananaistan wrote:"Belief seems incredibly weak compared to "any goal, cause, or view" and assembly is weak compared to "peacefully assemble, associate, and protest". Freedom of association is the more important part of the resolution you wish to replace with this.


"This is a good point, thank you - we have updated the language in our draft to include ambition alongside belief and association alongside assembly. I believe that the current phrasing ("for the purpose of articulating or advocating ...") covers the protest aspect of what you mention.

"Why only private property in 3b? One should not be entitled to hold a protest on the runway at the airport, the overtaking lane on the M3 at rush hour, or inside the spaceship hanger at Area 51.

"I would suspect that most reasonable governments would not permit protestors to rock up to, demand entry and be granted it to protest on the floor of parliament. Or to block the route of a foreign leader during a controversial state visit. Reasonable security should be allowed for.


"We have modified 3.a. and added a new 3.b. which the hope of addressing these concerns to a reasonable extent."

OOC: I am not fully sure yet about 3.a. and 3.b. ^ so would definitely appreciate further feedback on those. I've also made some modifications in response to the comments on the repeal thread, e.g. the action vs inaction issue.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2592
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Corporate Police State

Postby Honeydewistania » Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:16 pm

"Who gets to decide what is least restrictive?"
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:39 am

Honeydewistania wrote:"Who gets to decide what is least restrictive?"

"I do not believe there is much scope for subjectivity in this issue. The "least restrictive way of resolving [a] situation" is that which eliminates the problem caused by that situation with the least possible impact on other simultaneously ongoing activities. For example, if there are protesters obstructing vehicular traffic, the least restrictive way of resolving that situation would be to take steps to move them out of the way, rather than immediately arresting the protesters and preventing the protest from continuing."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 271
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:29 am

OOC: With the exception of capitalizing the sub clauses of point 3 (I just prefer it this way, I know others don’t) and point 4, I have no qualms with this.

Avi Rosenborg: “Well done once again, Ambassador. This replacement has my full support as does your colleague from Wymondham’s repeal effort.”
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Dec 13, 2020 1:07 pm

Boston Castle wrote:OOC: With the exception of capitalizing the sub clauses of point 3 (I just prefer it this way, I know others don’t) and point 4, I have no qualms with this.


OOC: And unfortunately I am one of those other people :P thanks for giving it a look-over though.

Avi Rosenborg: “Well done once again, Ambassador. This replacement has my full support as does your colleague from Wymondham’s repeal effort.”


"Thank you very much for your support, ambassador."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10161
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:00 pm

Boston Castle wrote:OOC: With the exception of capitalizing the sub clauses of point 3 (I just prefer it this way, I know others don’t) and point 4, I have no qualms with this.

Sub-lists should not be capitalised unless they are a new sentence.

Author: 1 SC and 40 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Liberimery
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 402
Founded: May 27, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Liberimery » Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:27 pm

So a religion that wishes to protest a war soldier’s funeral as they do not agree with a government policy, the protest cannot be counter protested by an organization that believes that a funeral is not a venue for a protest and attempts to drown them out by there counter protest noise?

What about an immigrant group having a rally supporting their nation of origin. Can it be counter protested by a second immigrant group that was the victim of a genocide supported by the first immigrant group’s home nation that they are celebrating? Especially if the date of the initial assembly falls on the anniversary of an important incident in the events of the genocide?

And what of a minority group protesting against a majority group because they feel that their rights are not respected because of their skin color?

Nobody protests in support of ideas everyone agrees with, but to bring awareness to problems in society. The minority may have some unpleasant words to say about a majority. But you’re call for a ban on a nebulous incitement to hate is silence to many legitimate issues to a government that chooses to turn a deaf ear to these issues. All they have to do is claim it is hate.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Dec 15, 2020 12:28 pm

Liberimery wrote:So a religion that wishes to protest a war soldier’s funeral as they do not agree with a government policy, the protest cannot be counter protested by an organization that believes that a funeral is not a venue for a protest and attempts to drown them out by there counter protest noise?

What about an immigrant group having a rally supporting their nation of origin. Can it be counter protested by a second immigrant group that was the victim of a genocide supported by the first immigrant group’s home nation that they are celebrating? Especially if the date of the initial assembly falls on the anniversary of an important incident in the events of the genocide?

And what of a minority group protesting against a majority group because they feel that their rights are not respected because of their skin color?

Nobody protests in support of ideas everyone agrees with, but to bring awareness to problems in society. The minority may have some unpleasant words to say about a majority. But you’re call for a ban on a nebulous incitement to hate is silence to many legitimate issues to a government that chooses to turn a deaf ear to these issues. All they have to do is claim it is hate.

"This is a good point and I have taken it - I have tried to strengthen clause 4."

OOC Edit: also added clause 3.f.
Last edited by Maowi on Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7769
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Dec 15, 2020 5:13 pm

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: The Tinhamptonian delegation is opposed both to this proposal and the repeal that would facilitate it. We do not believe that requiring member states to forbid assemblies which advocate for the "emotional abuse of an individual or group of individuals" - especially when it is unclear who ought to be doing the moral outcry and when such restrictions are rightfully not imposed on other forms of expression - would be of utility on an international scale. Since we cannot vote for portions of resolutions, only whole proposals, we must oppose this as a whole.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; current WA Delegate of Auctor; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Envoy
 
Posts: 334
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:43 pm

"We agree with Ambassador Smith. Clause 4 is a complete non-starter for us. The standard is entirely too subjective and subject to abuse. One could conceivably declare, under this resolution, that the comitia plebis is illegal, since the abuse of opposing politicians is a roughly daily occurrence, nevermind the constant inveighing against Communists and the GA delegates, and undesirables of society. We are fairly certain the same could be said (with substitutions) of just about any political or religious association present within the Republic. For that matter, our own honored self regularly engages in speech about the so-called Ambassadors of Tinfect and the Bananamen "Republic" that the very meeting of this clown sho...assembly violates clause 4."
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5165
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:29 am

[Irrelevancy Removed]

  1. Member states may not take punitive or discriminatory action against any individual for planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  2. Neither member states nor private entities within them may take exceptional action to prevent or hinder the planning or holding of non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition, subject to clause 3 of this resolution.

  3. Member states may act contrary to the mandates of clauses 1 and 2 of this resolution if and only if such action is the least restrictive way of resolving one or more of the following situations:
    1. the obstruction of vehicular traffic or the delivery of emergency services;
    2. the prevention of normal governance of the member state;
    3. the unauthorised use of private property;
    4. the existence of a material threat to the physical safety of one or more people;
    5. the existence of a material threat to private or state property;
    6. a violation of extant international legislation.
  4. Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:
    1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or
    2. the physical, verbal, sexual, or emotional abuse of an individual or group of individuals.

"To begin," said Feren, "The terms established in Clause Three are wildly insufficient; they account only for vehicle traffic, which, as the Imperium prefers to keep our streets viable for pedestrians, allows whatever dissident mob to blockade portions of the city simply on the basis that the Imperium chooses to develop its cities in a sensible manner. Of course it is good that the draft continues to allow the Imperium to prevent said mobs from having themselves killed via the challenging of public transit, but that alone is insufficient. Further, it fails to account for the 'non-violent' advocacy of illegal activity; the Imperium sees little reason to allow the gathering of an association of individuals seeking to betray information security to those with whom we are at war, or other such acts which do not constitute immediate violence. One would hope that the flaw in such is obvious.

However, unlike certain delegations to whom the concepts of civility and competence are apparently unheard of, the Imperium has no concerns with Clause 4. Indeed, we find its aggressive opposition towards the abhorrent groups implied in Four-Bee to be quite refreshing."
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Preliminary trials of Military Doctrinal Reform prototypes to begin; IRPC 5-115, 5-298, 5-076 public details, Project Lead interviews released | Aeravahn occupation expands to 17% of the Exterior Territories, Internal Security orders full-stop to Civilian expeditions to Exterior | TCO - Vigilant Star declared missing following exit of Iraet orbital region | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:26 am

"We have taken note of some of the objections given towards clause four and removed the offending portion - upon reflection it is true that it was too subjective and ambiguous a standard.

"It has become clear that our previous approach of constructing an ever-growing list of exceptions in clause 3 was untenable and likely made for weaker legislation than desired. We have therefore tried restructuring the proposal; hopefully this is an improvement? There are likely further issues to address in the draft in its current form but hopefully this structure lends itself better than the previous one."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:02 am

OOC: Bump - would still really appreciate feedback as to whether this way of structuring it works.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1031
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Sun Dec 27, 2020 2:45 pm

Maowi wrote:Notwithstanding the above, the rights granted to individuals by this resolution must not be permitted in cases in which individuals plan, assist, or participate in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of advocating, whether through action or inaction, either:

  1. violence towards an individual or group of individuals, or

  2. the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals.

OOC: Why are you wanting to allow hatespeech-spewing gatherings? Don't you know how emotional violence (often called verbal bullying to make it appear somehow less damaging to the target(s)) can cripple someone's functional abilities just as badly as physical violence?
This nation is a plant-based hivemind. It's current ambassador for interacting with humanoids is a bipedal plant creature standing at almost two metres tall. In IC in the WA.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Dec 27, 2020 5:46 pm

Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: Why are you wanting to allow hatespeech-spewing gatherings? Don't you know how emotional violence (often called verbal bullying to make it appear somehow less damaging to the target(s)) can cripple someone's functional abilities just as badly as physical violence?

OOC: We did previously have the language "verbal or emotional" abuse included in 5.b., but that's too easy to twist and take advantage of so we got rid of it.

What would you think of language to outlaw "hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity"? While "hatred" is slightly loose as a term, the qualifier about motivation might stop it overreaching.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6530
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Dec 28, 2020 5:14 am

Maowi wrote:
Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: Why are you wanting to allow hatespeech-spewing gatherings? Don't you know how emotional violence (often called verbal bullying to make it appear somehow less damaging to the target(s)) can cripple someone's functional abilities just as badly as physical violence?

OOC: We did previously have the language "verbal or emotional" abuse included in 5.b., but that's too easy to twist and take advantage of so we got rid of it.

What would you think of language to outlaw "hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity"? While "hatred" is slightly loose as a term, the qualifier about motivation might stop it overreaching.

(OOC: I recommend adding ‘or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation’, or similar wording, to that clause, to cover any other discriminated groups.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15384
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:18 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Maowi wrote:What would you think of language to outlaw "hatred towards an individual or group of individuals motivated by their disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity"? While "hatred" is slightly loose as a term, the qualifier about motivation might stop it overreaching.

(OOC: I recommend adding ‘or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation’, or similar wording, to that clause, to cover any other discriminated groups.)

OOC: With Kenmoria's addition, would agree.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1690
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:12 pm

Seems like a make work project if you ask me. #27 already does the job. Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel here?

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:47 pm

OOC: I have put that language into the draft, thank you for the suggestions :D.

Wayneactia wrote:Seems like a make work project if you ask me. #27 already does the job. Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel here?

Unfortunately, GA#27 does not do the job very well for quite a lot of reasons, many of which are listed here.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:28 am

OOC: Bumping this - does anyone have thoughts on whether clauses 3 and 4 work effectively?

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1143
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:31 pm

OOC: Updated with a new draft based off a conversation that took place in the WA discord. We have slightly modified the language in clause 2 by changing "exceptional action" simply to "action" and instead adding what is now clause 5. We have also put 3.a. in place, which used to be under the "notwithstanding" clause in a slightly different form.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ardiveds, Philimbesi

Advertisement

Remove ads