[GA - PASSED] Freedom of Association

[Hulldom]

Freedom of Association
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Boston Castle | Onsite Topic​

---

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the many foundational freedoms previously guaranteed by this Assembly such as freedom of the press and freedom of assembly,

Recognizing that while these fundamental freedoms are guaranteed that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of affiliation that is not,

Believing that no nation should enact criminal penalties for affiliating with an organisation not involved in the commission of a crime, hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:

1. Governments must allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing.
   • Freedom of association with an organisation is subject to the organisation in question allowing such association.
   • An organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it actively undermines national security, directs its members to violate national criminal law, includes the commission of crimes among its goals or activities, or spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group.

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]11[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]

"Freedom of Association" has passed 10,882 (72.1%) to 4,209 (27.9%).

 

[Bobberino]

For

 

[Rewan Demontay]

For

 

[Pallaith]

For

 

[Kaiser William Fulbright]

For

 

[Comfed]

For
Against

 

[Hulldom]

And I forgot the IFV post.

IFV

 

[Guilleana]

Present

 

[Hulldom]

Welp, in the space of fifteen hours I went from submission to queue. Woo. Barring my withdrawal of this or it getting marked illegal, this will go to a vote at next Wednesday's Major Update.

 

[East Isles]

For

 

[St George]

Against

 

[Imperial Sers]

For

 

[Tim Kasto]

For

 

[Zash]

For

 

[Alvin the Short and Terri]

For

 

[Simone]

For. The clause on national security gives me comfort that this would not be abused.

 

[Tinhampton]

Ineligible to vote.

For. The clause on national security gives me comfort that this would not be abused.

What is stopping member governments from calling groups that they do not like threats to their "national security?"

 

[Hulldom]

Ineligible to vote.


What is stopping member governments from calling groups that they do not like threats to their "national security?"

Well, the RL precedent is that member states either do so under *Exceptional Circumstances* (see: Germany-Criminal Code, Sections 84/86) or have had their laws passed, but never enforced and ruled functionally unconstitutional and/or repealed (see: Communist Control Act of 1954-case precedent: Communist Party v Catherwood (1960) and Blawis v. Bolin (1973)).

 

[Wilkshire]

For

 

[CD- betterThanFlash]

Against

Reason:
While we do not espouse hate, making freedom of association conditional based on hate speech allows many governments great leeway in suppressing this very freedom. Without the definition and bounds of national security, it can mean a lot of things that make this law conditional. This is a resolution with great intent with toothless in the end.

 

[Comfed]

Change my vote to against.

 

[Hulldom]

Change my vote to against.

done

 

[Citta Shakti]

FOR

 

[Simone]

Ineligible to vote.


What is stopping member governments from calling groups that they do not like threats to their "national security?"

Freedom is a privilege.

Ineligible to vote.


What is stopping member governments from calling groups that they do not like threats to their "national security?"

I assume you are also against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the UK as well? I don't want to get into real life politics here so will stop here.

 

[Comfed]

Freedom is a privilege.

I assume you are also against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the UK as well? I don't want to get into real life politics here so will stop here.

I think she’s referencing dissenting groups rather than criminals.

 

[West Papua States]

For

 

[Hulldom]

"Freedom of Association" has passed 10,882 (72.1%) to 4,209 (27.9%).