[GA - PASSED] Right To Assemble

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

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

Right To Assemble
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Maowi, Co-Authored by: Wymondham | Onsite Topic​

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.

  5. 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.
    3. 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 the individuals targeted by such advocacy.


Co-authored by Wymondham
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]8[/TD][TD]5[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]

Right To Assemble was passed 12,301 (79.4%) votes to 2,191 (20.4%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
"Right To Assemble" is a resolution by the esteemed General Assembly author Maowi that seeks to replace the recently repealed GAR #27 "Freedom Of Assembly". It replaces important protections that were stripped by the repeal of GAR #27, while adding additional restrictions to protect the general public.

Recommendation
This proposal, like its recently-repealed predecessor, seeks to enforce the right to peaceful assembly with limited exceptions for public safety. It resolves the issues presented in the repeal of its predecessor, including by introducing specific definitions for harmful activities, reasons for which governments may take action against a gathering, but only if it is the least restrictive way of doing so. These definitions are sensible, carefully worded, and prevents loopholes such as allowing governments to declare certain assemblies illegal activities. In addition, the proposal allows governments to prevent assemblies based on hate and requires them to protect groups targeted by these assemblies, a step which protects the civil rights of minorities.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Right To Assemble".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
carry out actions which, were they carried out in any circumstance other than non-violent assembly or association, would otherwise be considered legal.
Click to expand...
Against because of this.
 
Last edited:
Noah's Second Country:
Present (Non-WA)

Can someone explain the relationship between the two right to assemble resolutions?
Click to expand...
As for what I’m aware of and either author can swipe me if I’m wrong: Maowi and Wym worked on the repeal and worked on this. Maowi’s was drafted first and submitted first and had been in the works for awhile; Greater Cesnica began drafting his once Wym’s repeal of 27 came close to vote. I have no idea why Ces decided to draft on the same subject or anything.
 
Boston Castle:
As for what I’m aware of and either author can swipe me if I’m wrong: Maowi and Wym worked on the repeal and worked on this. Maowi’s was drafted first and submitted first and had been in the works for awhile; Greater Cesnica began drafting his once Wym’s repeal of 27 came close to vote. I have no idea why Ces decided to draft on the same subject or anything.
Click to expand...
My primary reason for drafting was due to Article 5(a)(ii) of this proposal, which has the potential to be abused by member states or to be interpreted in purported "good faith" in such a manner as to criminalize a wide array of thought and advocacy beyond what is listed in that subsection, thought and advocacy that isn't by any good faith interpretation considered hateful towards groups of protected status. (I posted this explanation in the OP on the on-site topic: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=497398)
 
Hello! I'm happy to answer any questions people may have on this, feel free to send them my way here or in private or elsewhere.

MajorTriad:
Against because of this.
Click to expand...
May I ask what you find unfavourable about that language? Perhaps I can try and clarify the purpose of it :)

Boston Castle:
As for what I’m aware of and either author can swipe me if I’m wrong: Maowi and Wym worked on the repeal and worked on this. Maowi’s was drafted first and submitted first and had been in the works for awhile; Greater Cesnica began drafting his once Wym’s repeal of 27 came close to vote. I have no idea why Ces decided to draft on the same subject or anything.
Click to expand...
This is correct. As far as I know, GC didn't like my policy in 5.b. and so drafted their own version without an equivalent provision. I could expand a bit more on the differences between the two if that explanation would be helpful?

Edit - ninja'd :p I've put my thoughts on the issue in spoilers, GC and I have had this debate elsewhere already and I think we each know where the other stands on this.

In line with WA law on civil rights and discrimination [i.e. GA 35], my proposed replacement permits member states to act to prevent the advocacy of hate towards another individual based on their “disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.” Furthermore, it mandates that member states deciding not to act in such situations must ensure the safety of the people being targeted by such hate speech. GC has no restrictions on this. Me and Wym chose to take this approach because of the extra danger to people targeted by this kind of thing when you have a whole group of people assembling together in a group to advocate this; emotions get a lot more fired and with people all acting together in one mass it is so much more difficult to prevent people getting attacked.

GC has the (understandable in motive) objection that the terminology in clause 5.b. could be twisted maliciously by member states wishing to suppress certain assemblies. The main difference in our approaches is that I am confident in the strength of GAR 2's good-faith compliance requirement, since we have an impartial WA committee (the WACC) to enforce it. GC is not confident in it.
 
Last edited:
Against

I respect and affirm the need of a resolution that protects the right of assembly, but I believe this rendition to be too specific and therefore limiting to a WA that is thousands of nations large.

That being said, a more specific issue I have is in section 5 clause 2 which includes "gender identity" among its categories. I fear this will allow nations to silence those who advocate against the public funding and legality of the abortion procedure within their nation as this can be banned as an act of "protecting discrimination against women".
 
Maowi:
Hello! I'm happy to answer any questions people may have on this, feel free to send them my way here or in private or elsewhere.


May I ask what you find unfavourable about that language? Perhaps I can try and clarify the purpose of it :)


This is correct. As far as I know, GC didn't like my policy in 5.b. and so drafted their own version without an equivalent provision. I could expand a bit more on the differences between the two if that explanation would be helpful?

Edit - ninja'd :p I've put my thoughts on the issue in spoilers, GC and I have had this debate elsewhere already and I think we each know where the other stands on this.

In line with WA law on civil rights and discrimination [i.e. GA 35], my proposed replacement permits member states to act to prevent the advocacy of hate towards another individual based on their “disability, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or another arbitrary, reductive categorisation.” Furthermore, it mandates that member states deciding not to act in such situations must ensure the safety of the people being targeted by such hate speech. GC has no restrictions on this. Me and Wym chose to take this approach because of the extra danger to people targeted by this kind of thing when you have a whole group of people assembling together in a group to advocate this; emotions get a lot more fired and with people all acting together in one mass it is so much more difficult to prevent people getting attacked.

GC has the (understandable in motive) objection that the terminology in clause 5.b. could be twisted maliciously by member states wishing to suppress certain assemblies. The main difference in our approaches is that I am confident in the strength of GAR 2's good-faith compliance requirement, since we have an impartial WA committee (the WACC) to enforce it. GC is not confident in it.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your concise explanation of your thoughts. While I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, I'm glad that you summed up the disagreement in the spoiler in the way you did :p
 
Wonderess:
That being said, a more specific issue I have is in section 5 clause 2 which includes "gender identity" among its categories. I fear this will allow nations to silence those who advocate against the public funding and legality of the abortion procedure within their nation as this can be banned as an act of "protecting discrimination against women".
Click to expand...
This is an understandable worry, but the particular language used is "hatred" on the basis of gender identity - not merely "discrimination". Absent the use of rhetoric belittling or showing aggression to women, or something along that line, I do not think advocation against the funding/legality of abortion would be unprotected by this proposal.
 
Maowi:
May I ask what you find unfavourable about that language? Perhaps I can try and clarify the purpose of it :)
Click to expand...
I voted against on the assumption that it was supposed to be written "illegal".
If it was, then section 4 clause 2 would presumably enable individuals to engage in unlawful activity in the name of their cause. This is, as I understand it, incompatible with section 3 clause 3.
If it wasn't meant to be written that way, and I'm misinterpreting this, I'm sorry! But I would still vote Against, because section 3 clause 3 would allow any member state to shut down a gathering advocating against an enforcable law, as it could encourage citizens to disobey it.
 
MajorTriad:
I voted against on the assumption that it was supposed to be written "illegal".
If it was, then section 4 clause 2 would presumably enable individuals to engage in unlawful activity in the name of their cause. This is, as I understand it, incompatible with section 3 clause 3.
If it wasn't meant to be written that way, and I'm misinterpreting this, I'm sorry! But I would still vote Against, because section 3 clause 3 would allow any member state to shut down a gathering advocating against an enforcable law, as it could encourage citizens to disobey it.
Click to expand...
Ahh, thank you for explaining. I think you may have misunderstood the intention of section 4.2., in which case hopefully an explanation from me can clear that up -

Basically, the way this works is that clause 3. allows member states to interfere in non-violent assembly to address any ongoing illegal activities. However, member states could use that to make protests very difficult, because they could decide that all these things associated with the protest are now illegal and so must be stopped. To address that, we have section 4.;

- 4.1 makes sure that the assembly itself can't be made unlawful, and so ensures that it can broadly go on
- 4.2 makes sure that member states can't decide that certain things are unlawful only when carried out in the context of a protest, but not in other contexts - i.e. it stops them implementing super unreasonable restrictions to try and prevent the protest from functioning effectively

I understand your concern about section 3.3. However, it is specifically designed so that only advocacy for imminent and probable illegal activity can give member states cause to intervene. A protest advocating for the striking down of an enforceable law via the regular, legal means would not fall afoul of this.

I hope that helps!
 
Maowi:
Ahh, thank you for explaining. I think you may have misunderstood the intention of section 4.2., in which case hopefully an explanation from me can clear that up -

Basically, the way this works is that clause 3. allows member states to interfere in non-violent assembly to address any ongoing illegal activities. However, member states could use that to make protests very difficult, because they could decide that all these things associated with the protest are now illegal and so must be stopped. To address that, we have section 4.;

- 4.1 makes sure that the assembly itself can't be made unlawful, and so ensures that it can broadly go on
- 4.2 makes sure that member states can't decide that certain things are unlawful only when carried out in the context of a protest, but not in other contexts - i.e. it stops them implementing super unreasonable restrictions to try and prevent the protest from functioning effectively

I understand your concern about section 3.3. However, it is specifically designed so that only advocacy for imminent and probable illegal activity can give member states cause to intervene. A protest advocating for the striking down of an enforceable law via the regular, legal means would not fall afoul of this.

I hope that helps!
Click to expand...
Thank you, I see your point about section 4 more clearly now.
 
Last edited:
As of 5:50 PM EST, this proposal has once again made queue. It should go up for a vote at Friday's Minor if it does not fall out before then.
 
Unless pushed out of quorum by minor update tomorrow, this will go to a vote at tomorrow's Minor Update following the withdrawal of "Ban on Microplastics in Cosmetics".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top