Article 3 of GA#436 "[p]rohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting [...] restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation." This means that future acts of international law could be enacted that would require nations to ban clothing, to prohibit nudism, or to enact onerous restrictions on what sort of clothes may be worn and where.
The intention of Freedom of dress is to prevent such restrictions from being enacted throughout the WA in future, except to prevent the propagation of hate speech. It allows member nations to impose such restrictions where necessary for health and safety, to ensure that Joe Public does not impersonate soldiers or key workers, and to allow for requirements that...
sensitive body parts be covered in public. It allows employers and schools to set dress codes, so long as they are not sexist (see also the preamble's CONDEMNING clause) or otherwise discriminatory.
Tuesday will mark the fifth anniversary of
Nicola Thorp revealing to the BBC that she was sent home from work six months earlier -
in London, the capital of the United Kingdom - for not wearing high heels. Thorp's petition*,
"Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work," remains the 105th most popular petition (out of more than 80,000 ever uploaded) in the history of the UK Parliament's official petition website and was debated in its secondary debate chamber, Westminster Hall. Do you want such injustices as those that Thorp suffered to be perpetuated, every hour of every day of every year, somewhere in the World Assembly?
*You will note that petition.parliament.uk no longer names the creators of closed petitions; however, doubting sharks need not apply.
