[GA - PASSED] Repeal: "Freedom of Assembly"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

REPEAL: "Freedom of Assembly"
Category: Repeal | GA #27
Proposed by: Wymondham and Maowi| Onsite Topic
Replacement: Onsite Drafting Thread​

General Assembly Resolution #27 “Freedom of Assembly” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #27 to establish and safeguard the fundamental right to freely associate and assemble,

Regretting the many loopholes that the resolution presents which could allow despotic governments to clamp down on free assembly, such as the lack of a definition or qualifier for “harm” in clause 3, potentially obligating governments to forbid protests or demonstrations based on minor, technical and irrelevant harms, such as increased taxes on the most wealthy in society,

Believing, despite this, that there are also many situations in which the resolution protects assemblies which cause severe threats to public safety, as detailed below,

Noting that Clause 1 of the resolution establishes the right to “peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view”,

Concerned, however, that Clause 1 allows denizens to abuse the rights granted by it to evade incarceration, punishment, or other repercussions for their crimes - a significant hindrance to the execution of justice, by extending the right to assemble to “all individuals” regardless of their criminal status,

Worried that clause 2 of the resolution does not prevent protests which cause harm to members of the public, for example protests organised on a public highway, those which would block the route of emergency vehicles, or protests that take place in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, as clause 2 states governments may only restrict the freedom of assembly when “individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing”,

Saddened that, while it bars those who call for violence via direct action from its protections, the resolution shields those who do so via calls for deliberate inaction, such as by urging law enforcement officers to refrain from protecting individuals of a certain racial group,

Appalled that clause 3 does not extend its prohibition to demonstrations that call for violence against the imprisoned, accused or convicted, only applying its protections to the nebulously defined group of “innocent people”,

Believing that more detailed and comprehensive legislation is required to address the issues raised in this resolution,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #27 “Freedom of Assembly”.

Co-authored by Maowi
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]5[/TD][TD]15[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]3[/TD][/TR]

Repeal "Freedom of Assembly was passed 8,808 (58.0%) votes to 6,373 (42.0%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
The at-vote proposal seeks to repeal GA resolution "Freedom of Assembly", arguing that its lack of clear definitions creates several loopholes which may be exploited against the best interests of those it sets out to protect. Two separate replacements are being drafted, should this proposal pass.

Recommendation
The proposal in question makes for a weak case against GA #27. The proposal provides several minor quibbles with the target resolution and presents them as an argument for repeal. However, the proposal fails to create a clear argument as to why the resolution does not work, resulting in a disjointed argument that ends up tripping over itself. Additionally, the proposed replacements for the resolution carry over some of the flaws observed in the original.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, 'Repeal: "Freedom of Assembly"'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Damnit, Honeydew.)

Anyways, I will vote for this regardless as Wym does a great job at communicating the shortcomings of this resolution, but that being said, I would much prefer it if Maowi OR Greater Cesnica submit their replacement in a manner such that once this passes, that will be the next thing at vote.

For. [Non-WA]
 
Last edited:
Honeydewistan:
I am against this proposal, (non-WA [inb4 Cretox edits my post to reflect that])
Click to expand...
I am the one editing your posts.

Against.
Appalled that clause 3 does not extend its prohibition to demonstrations that call for violence against the imprisoned, accused or convicted, only applying its protections to the nebulously defined group of “innocent people”,
Click to expand...
Because people shouls be able to say that a convict in their opinion should get the death penalty? (Although execution won't be possible for long.)
 
Appalled that clause 3 does not extend its prohibition to demonstrations that call for violence against the imprisoned, accused or convicted, only applying its protections to the nebulously defined group of “innocent people”,
Click to expand...
Against because of this.
 
Hello! I'm just dropping in to address a couple of things if that's okay, and I can try answer any questions if people have them. As a note our replacement draft can be found here for anyone who would like to have a look.

Re: the "Appalled" clause - while there may be (as you point out about the death penalty) certain cases where calling for violence against convicts is potentially justified, GA#27 uses the term "innocent" with no context or definition whatsoever - for example, are ex-convicts considered "innocent" upon their release from prison? By my reading, GA#27 easily allows member states not to include them in these protections, introducing a really harmful double-standard. That kind of situation is the motivation behind that clause.

Boston Castle:
Anyways, I will vote for this regardless as Wym does a great job at communicating the shortcomings of this resolution, but that being said, I would much prefer it if Maowi OR Greater Cesnica submit their replacement in a manner such that once this passes, that will be the next thing at vote.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, that is what I plan to do!
 
Regretting the many loopholes that the resolution presents which could allow despotic governments to clamp down on free assembly, such as the lack of a definition or qualifier for “harm” in clause 3, potentially obligating governments to forbid protests or demonstrations based on minor, technical and irrelevant harms, such as increased taxes on the most wealthy in society,
Click to expand...
I understand the sentiment, but I feel that written law will always be able to be interpreted in a way that was against its original intent. There could be fifty paragraphs to specifically define harm and yet even then it is a finite definition that someone could find a way to bend if they tried hard enough. I want to recognize the positive intention of the authors as well as the amount of work that went into this proposal, but I can not bring myself to repeal such a fundamental resolution with the arguments presented.

Against
 
Boston Castle:
(Damnit, Honeydew.)

Anyways, I will vote for this regardless as Wym does a great job at communicating the shortcomings of this resolution, but that being said, I would much prefer it if Maowi OR Greater Cesnica submit their replacement in a manner such that once this passes, that will be the next thing at vote.

For. [Non-WA]
Click to expand...
I'll be sure to submit it that way.
 
Wonderess:
I understand the sentiment, but I feel that written law will always be able to be interpreted in a way that was against its original intent. There could be fifty paragraphs to specifically define harm and yet even then it is a finite definition that someone could find a way to bend if they tried hard enough. I want to recognize the positive intention of the authors as well as the amount of work that went into this proposal, but I can not bring myself to repeal such a fundamental resolution with the arguments presented.

Against
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from - it is always difficult to close all the loopholes in your language - but I thought I should mention that is something we actively tried to focus on improving in our replacement (here). The GA#27 language really is incredibly broad when you think about the implications it would have on so many situations.
 
Westinor:
And it appears this proposal has been marked illegal.
Click to expand...
Per the onsite thread, Wym plans to figure out which of the clauses were offending, delete those, and resubmit fairly soon.
 
Last edited:
Also, for reference, this proposal has been marked legal by GenSec. So it should be good this time.
 
Last edited:
As of 1:48 PM EST, this post has achieved the requisite number of votes and reached quorum. By my estimate, it should go up at major Sunday night (into Monday).
 
My apologies, my estimate was an update off. This proposal will move to the voting floor at Monday's Minor Update.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top