NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT #2] Repeal GA#537 "Right to Assemble"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

[DRAFT #2] Repeal GA#537 "Right to Assemble"

Postby Tinhampton » Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:34 am

Character count: 4,813
Word count: 762
ICly, this is the work of Kevin Mitchell, who replaced Victoria Jenkins after the shambles that was Repeal "Prevention Of Forced Sterilisation."

OOC: A bill to facilitate the passage of Right To Peaceful Assembly Protecting Peaceful Assembly, and for other purposes. This will likely not be submitted before July mid-June 2022. Regarding Article g(i).
Image
Image
Image
Repeal "Right to Assemble"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Target: GA#537
Proposed by: Tinhampton

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

The General Assembly finds the following:
  1. GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly" was repealed by GA#536 to facilitate GA#537 "Right to Assemble." The goal of GA#537, to protect peaceful assembly subject to certain conditions, is admirable and largely achieved by its first four Articles; yet this does not mean that they are perfect, nor does its Article 5 promote efficient use of state resources.
  2. GA#537 - unlike GA#27 or any ideal legislation on this matter - establishes no positive right to organise or partake in "non-violent assembl[ies]," only negative rights for their organisers and participants. (Article 1 guarantees that they will not receive "punitive or discriminatory action" by a member state for so organising or participating; Article 2 requires that such assemblies not be "prevent[ed] or hinder[ed]" by "member states nor private entities within them.")
  3. These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated to allow for assemblies which involve "harmful activities" to be controlled. However, Article 3 allows only "advocacy of violence towards an individual or group," "unlawful action" and "advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action" to be deemed harmful activities, while Article 2 only allows peaceful assemblies to be broken up in order to "prevent[] or curtail[] harmful activities." This means that many of GA#536's concerns about when assemblies could be broken up under GA#27 are not answered by GA#537 at all: for example, those members where blocking the passage of emergency service vehicles like ambulances is not illegal cannot temporarily break up assemblies so as to unblock their passage (which puts lives and property at indirect risk in such members), while members cannot generally prevent assemblies that occur in locations or situations demonstrably hazardous to the health of their participants.
  4. Article 5 of GA#537 has two parts. Article 5a permits members to restrict "non-violent assemblies" that promote "actions or inaction that would constitute: the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or hatred towards an individual or group" due to their possession of an arbitrary and reductive characteristic. Article 5b compels members who opt not to impose such restrictions to "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by such advocacy."
  5. Notwithstanding this august body's belief that hate speech regulation should ideally focus on offenders, not victims, Article 5 concerningly does not define what counts as "hatred," what precise forms "abuse" can take, and what a "necessary" safety measure is. Nor are members exempt from their Article 5b obligations just because a local police force (for instance) acts to "prevent or curtail the advocacy" of any "actions or inaction" proscribed by Article 5a without coordinating with any member government.
  6. GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" implicitly requires members to sanction other members that do not satisfy Article 5b, and forbids future resolutions from time-limiting such sanctions or banning their imposition on certain goods. Resolutions that entail such drastic measures for members who refuse to suppress (or else "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by") speech that may not even violate their own national laws, let alone other international laws, should not be kept on the books.
  7. Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that, in order to avoid such sanctions, a member state which:
    1. chooses to permit an assembly calling for all of its inhabitants who hail from a particular nation to freely repatriate themselves there, which can be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," may have to provide emotional support to such inhabitants because it will "ensure the[ir] safety" - which may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires data disaggregated by national origin to be collected for any reason,
    2. implicitly tolerates a two-person protest calling for the highest-ranking general of a country with which it is at war to be slapped in the face with a wet fish could be bound to deliver security services for that general, even if they already receive around-the-clock protection, and
    3. relies on its political subdivisions and their agencies to enforce Article 5a must "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by" each protest where such enforcement happens, but would not have to do so if it directly enforced Article 5a.
  8. GA#537 is unwieldy, unfit for purpose and - since this body can neither amend Article 3, insert a new Article explicitly protecting peaceful assembly, nor remove Article 5 only - must be repealed entirely.
The GA therefore repeals GA#537 "Right to Assemble."








OLD DRAFTS
The General Assembly finds the following:
  1. The goal of GA#537 "Right to Assemble" - to protect peaceful assembly subject to certain conditions - is admirable and largely achieved by its first four Articles; yet this does not mean that they are perfect, nor does its fifth Article promote efficient use of state resources.
  2. GA#537 - unlike its predecessor, GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly," and unlike any ideal legislation on this matter - does not establish a positive right to organise or partake in "non-violent assembl[ies]," only negative rights for their organisers and participants. (Article 1 guarantees a negative right for such individuals not to be subject to "punitive or discriminatory action" by a member state; its Article 2, a negative right for them not to be "prevent[ed] or hinder[ed]" by "member states or private entities within them" for such organisation or participation.)
  3. These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated to allow for assemblies which constitute "harmful activities" to be controlled. However, Article 3 allows only "the advocacy of violence towards an individual or group," "unlawful action" and "advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action" to be classified as harmful activities. GA#537 hence prohibits member states which do not necessarily ban advocacy of illegal activity from preventing assemblies at which that non-violent illegal activity not covered by its Article 5, such as the destruction of private property or the extralegal abrogation of the local system of government, is being promoted but unlikely to be imminently conducted.
  4. Article 5 of GA#537 is split into two sections. Article 5a permits members to restrict "non-violent assemblies" that promote "actions or inaction that would constitute: the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or hatred towards an individual or group" due to their possession of an arbitrary and reductive characteristic. Article 5b compels members who opt not to impose such restrictions to "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by such advocacy."
  5. Notwithstanding this august body's belief that it should focus on offenders rather than victims should it ever introduce substantial regulation of hate speech, Article 5's provisions are problematic inasmuch as they do not define what counts as "hatred," what precise forms "abuse" can take, and what a "necessary" protection measure is. Nor are members exempt from their obligations under Article 5b simply because a local police force (for instance) acts to "prevent or curtail the advocacy" of any "actions or inaction" proscribed in Article 5a without coordinating with any member government.
  6. GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" implicitly requires members to impose sanctions on those states that do not fulfil their obligations under Article 5b, and forbids future resolutions from time-limiting such sanctions or banning their imposition on certain goods. Resolutions should not be kept on the books if they entail members facing such drastic economic consequences for refusing to prevent the propagation of (or otherwise "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by") speech that may not even contradict their own national laws, let alone other international laws.
  7. Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that it is more than possible that - in order to avoid such sanctions - a member state which:
    1. chooses to permit an assembly calling for all inhabitants of that member hailing from a particular country to voluntarily repatriate themselves to said country, which is likely to be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," could be obliged to provide emotional support to such inhabitants - which may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires disaggregated data based on national origin to be collected for any reason,
    2. implicitly tolerates a two-person protest calling for the highest-ranking general of a country with which that member is at war to be slapped in the face with a wet fish could be bound to provide security services for that general, even if they already receive around-the-clock protection, and
    3. relies on its political subdivisions and their agencies to enforce Article 5a will have to "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the [targeted] individuals" at each protest where such enforcement happens, but would not be required to do so if it directly enforced Article 5a.
  8. GA#537 is unwieldy, unfit for purpose and - since this august body can neither amend Article 3, insert a new Article explicitly protecting peaceful assembly, nor strike out Article 5 only - must be repealed entirely.
The GA therefore repeals GA#537 "Right to Assemble."
Last edited by Tinhampton on Wed May 25, 2022 10:42 am, edited 9 times in total.
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, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 72524
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Thermodolia » Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:45 am

Will support the repeal but not the replacement
Male, State Socialist, Cultural Nationalist, Welfare Chauvinist lives somewhere in AZ I'm GAY! Disabled US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies

RIP Dya

User avatar
South St Maarten
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 176
Founded: Apr 16, 2017
Left-Leaning College State

Postby South St Maarten » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:18 pm

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former First & Second Deputy Commissioner Of Europe
European Undersecretary For Culture
European Ambassador To The Western Isles
Member Of The European Home & Foreign Offices

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of character unless noted otherwise. Any Questions, Comments, or Concerns, feel free to telegram me! :D

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1226
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:12 pm

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


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

(Edited for my brain doing stupid things)
Last edited by Maowi on Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:35 am

Thermodolia wrote:Will support the repeal but not the replacement

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

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

South St Maarten wrote:Regarding the rest of the proposal, I'll offer marginal support.

How marginal? :P

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

Fixed - I derped with my boilerplate code.

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

1. I thought my problem is not that RTPA does not define what "advocacy of violence" is but that GA#537 requires uniformly applied standards to define such advocacy... apparently not. Article c will likely be changed soon.
2. I am not working with GC on this draft and he is not working with me on his draft. In any event, he is not currently focusing on RTPA and this is not a particularly high-priority repeal.
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, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri May 13, 2022 10:57 am

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

Given GC's ongoing inactivity, I will likely be embarking on my own replacement should I push ahead with this repeal. Time pressures in real life and elsewhere on NS mean I won't be able to get to it for at least a week and a bit - if not until next month.
Last edited by Tinhampton on Fri May 13, 2022 11:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
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, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 867
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Fri May 13, 2022 1:04 pm

Negative rights good. Opposed.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TNP Minister of Foreign Affairs

User avatar
Wymondham
Envoy
 
Posts: 322
Founded: Apr 03, 2017
Libertarian Police State

Postby Wymondham » Fri May 13, 2022 1:05 pm

Hulldom wrote:Negative rights good. Opposed.

Hobbes do be based like that
Doer of the things and the stuffs.
That British dude who does the charity fundraiser.

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 225
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Fri May 13, 2022 2:21 pm

Hulldom wrote:Negative rights good. Opposed.

“Let me see. *reads the definition of negative rights*. Nope, I have to disagree. Her highness should have the full ability to intervene against the rights of a person :p . In all seriousness though, the proposal laid out by the Tinhamptonian ambassador seems good, but definitely needs to define certain terms in the proposal, such as “negative rights” and etc.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri May 13, 2022 2:26 pm

Mitchell: The concept of negative rights are sufficiently well-known among ambassadors that I don't see the point in re-explaining them here, do I?
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, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 225
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Fri May 13, 2022 4:28 pm

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

“To be honest, ambassador Mitchell, I had to consult my WA dictionary ;)
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Fachumonn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fachumonn » Fri May 13, 2022 5:22 pm

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

Minor nitpick.
Last edited by Fachumonn on Fri May 13, 2022 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.


WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them/Their | RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent, Leans Defender

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat May 21, 2022 9:03 am

Not satisfied that "fulfil" is a typo.

Those of you who were sceptical of my thoughts about positive and negative rights may be reassured to hear that I believe that both kinds of right can be promoted and satisfied in a resolution on peaceful assembly. To that extent, I have (finally) published my replacement. You'll note it's a bit strong on negative rights, but I do require member states to broadly permit peaceful assembly.
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, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11502
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat May 21, 2022 9:08 am

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

Minor nitpick.

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

Author: 1 SC and 47 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Fachumonn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fachumonn » Sat May 21, 2022 10:55 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Fachumonn wrote:Minor nitpick.

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

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


WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them/Their | RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent, Leans Defender

User avatar
The Forest of Aeneas
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 198
Founded: Apr 15, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Forest of Aeneas » Sat May 21, 2022 6:12 pm

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

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

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

'No.'
=> World Assembly Ambassador Cecilia Maro, author of GA#611.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun May 22, 2022 5:33 am

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

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

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

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

'No.'

Mitchell: While the temptation to snap back with a simple "yes" is extremely strong, I have recently discovered that international attitudes have, to some extent, shifted in favour of regulation. While those attitudes far from reflect Tinhamptonian beliefs on the subject - a simple decrial of queerphobic "bullying" rather than "hate speech" would have been very much preferable - changes have been made regardless.
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, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Wed May 25, 2022 10:42 am

Draft #2, which revises Article c and cuts some words off everywhere else, is now up. Thanks to Maowi for the help (even though she didn't want co-author credit). Still looking at submission in a couple of weeks or so.
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, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anne of Cleves in TNP, Gaaji

Advertisement

Remove ads