[DEFEATED] Freedom of Opinion and Belief

[Therimenjas]

1) Mind-reading devices exist in some nations. Determining that someone holds a particular opinion without their having expressed it is technologically possible. Punishing people for opinions determined to exist in their mind through the use of mind-reading devices would be forbidden by this legislation.
2) Inferring someone's unstated opinion requires no great technological acumen, and can be done in even the most primitive nations. Punishing people for inferred opinions would be forbidden by this legislation.
3) Declaring someone to have an opinion and then criminalizing them for it may be possible under some legal codes. This practice would be forbidden by this legislation.
4) Determining that someone is genetically likely to possess an opinion, and using this as an excuse to criminalize the possession of certain genetic or epigenetic forms, is entirely conceivable and indeed could occur at lower technology levels in cruder forms. This practice would be forbidden by this legislation.

There are actual use-cases for this legislation. Therimenjas supports forbidding what this legislation would forbid.

(OOC: Everyone does remember that mind-reading devices are acknowledged in the issue system, right? They're canonical sci-fi components in this setting.)

[WATCHOUTIA]

Can somebody please tell me how to cast a vote in the WA? As Dictator of the Democratic Republic of WATCHOUIA, I am DESPERATE to raise my voice and make it heard 'round the world!

[WATCHOUTIA]

You pose two very good questions.

The name of your nation, BTW, eggs the question: Does your Nation support the right of its citizens (especially wopeople) to bare arms?

[WATCHOUTIA]

BULLY (in the good sense) FOR THERIMENJAS! EVERYONE IN THE WA SHOULD THROW THEIR FULL SUPPORT BEHIND THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION! (Pardon the shouting, but it's excitingly rare to see the topic treated so succinctly and crystal-clear!

[Kenmoria]

:( Can somebody please tell me how to cast a vote in the WA? As Dictator of the Democratic Republic of WATCHOUIA, I am DESPERATE to raise my voice and make it heard 'round the world!

(OOC: Your nation needs to be part of the World Assembly to vote. To register, you should go to this page and click the button says that “Join the World Assembly”. After you have done so, you will receive an email with instructions on how to join.)

[Nova Universo Headquarters]

Alafia Odusanya, Representative of the Union of Nova Universo to the General Assembly: The Union, in behalf of its member states, votes FOR the proposition 'Freedom of Opinions and Belief' and encourages its fellow members to vote likewise. This proposal reinforces civil freedoms and rights, enforces its primacy over other laws, and guarantees the exercise and protection thereof across the Multiverses.

After having watched the debate over this proposition, the Union are convinced that there is no reason for it not to pass. The opponents of this proposition attack its brevity of structure and the absence of an enforcing power for it. They are concerned that if this proposition becomes a resolution, everyone can scream anything from inane advertisements to slogans encouraging war and bloodshed. Furthermore, a few point out that this cannot be passed as there are other laws protecting the rights of speech, thought, opinion, belief and its collaterals.

I would like everyone to disabuse themselves of the notion that this proposition is useless. Remember that everyone has a right to do whatever they want to, as long as it does not impinge upon others' liberties and rights. This includes things that are not acceptable according to societal norms. Yes, anyone and everyone can do even the most disgusting and shocking action ever thought, as long as it does not kill, steal, injure or otherwise negatively affect all the persons within its scope.

I also want to remind the honoured members of this assembly to remind themselves of their duties as representatives. My esteemed friends, the honourable representatives, we all have the duty to speak for the people that sent us here. Even if we have contrary opinions towards the proposition presently tabled, we have no right to stop it just because we don't like it. We are not here on our own merits, nor on our governments' bidings, but on the trust of the people we must speak up for.

I am shocked that several nations who pride themselves as bastions of civil rights, fortresses of democracy and supporters of freedom do not support this proposition. If your nation believes in civil rights, why would you vote against its protection? If your nation promotes democracy, why would you vote against its practise? If your nation believes in freedom, why are you stifling it? Is there anything about this proposition which can send your country in a tailspin, if it is, as you describe it, an ardent believer in the rights of the people?

I assume that you all are afraid of what this will cause: the exposure of your governments to scrutiny, destruction and replacement. I surmise that you are terrified of being made accountable to your people. I think that you do not even know what 'freedom', 'civil rights', 'democracy' really means. That is why you all do not want this to pass, as this will empower the people against you, your leaders and the mess you call 'a government that protects the rights of its people to expression'.

[Verdant Haven]

I also want to remind the honoured members of this assembly to remind themselves of their duties as representatives. My esteemed friends, the honourable representatives, we all have the duty to speak for the people that sent us here. Even if we have contrary opinions towards the proposition presently tabled, we have no right to stop it just because we don't like it. We are not here on our own merits, nor on our governments' bidings, but on the trust of the people we must speak up for.

I am shocked that several nations who pride themselves as bastions of civil rights, fortresses of democracy and supporters of freedom do not support this proposition. If your nation believes in civil rights, why would you vote against its protection? If your nation promotes democracy, why would you vote against its practise? If your nation believes in freedom, why are you stifling it? Is there anything about this proposition which can send your country in a tailspin, if it is, as you describe it, an ardent believer in the rights of the people?

"Quite right, but sadly it is because of my duty as a delegate that I must cast my vote against this. My constituents have submitted their ballots in opposition to this proposal by a staggering 6:1 ratio, and I will not betray their trust by silencing their voices with my own. We can take such steps as are possible to educate and provoke thought, but in the end I will do my duty to my region. It has been a long time since honest writing and straightforward presentation were what got a proposal passed by the WA, if indeed such a time ever existed. A playground of soi-disant lawyers is hardly the place for reasoned conversation."

[Waffia]

"Voted against because the resolution does not give a clear motivation or context, nor does it provide clear legal terminology."

[Elyreia]

“The Elyreian lenton has requested that our vote be against the proposal on the floor. There are questions regarding enforcement in nations and regions for which there are no means by which to monitor, or otherwise know, what one’s beliefs or opinions are without expressing those opinions or views. It seems to be policing an act for which the process of monitoring is a method that is already covered by prior legislation. It seems unnecessarily pedantic, or worst case seems nigh impossible to enforce.”

[Tinhampton]

"Freedom of Opinion and Belief" was defeated 9,246 votes to 3,626. (28.17% support)

[Kenmoria]

"Freedom of Opinion and Belief" was defeated 9,246 votes to 3,626. (28.17% support)

(OOC: Commiserations, Tinhampton. Hopefully, your attempt at legislating some of the provisions into active law will enjoy greater success.)