[GA - MARKED ILLEGAL] Freedom of Opinion and Belief

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

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

Freedom of Opinion and Belief
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​

Whereas brainwashing is bad and wrong, the General Assembly hereby:

  1. forbids member states from:
    1. criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,
    2. criminalising the status of possessing or lacking any arbitrary or reductive characteristic, and
    3. requiring any of their inhabitants to affirm, express, retract or reject any opinion or belief, even if those inhabitants sincerely hold those opinions or beliefs,
  2. prohibits the World Assembly and its agents from discriminating against:
    1. any person or group due to their holding (not necessarily expression) of any opinions or beliefs, nor any arbitrary and reductive characteristics they may possess, and
    2. any government due to any of their actions (except where necessary, or otherwise required by resolution, to ensure that said member complies with international law) or their beliefs,
  3. requires members to permit the holding and expression of facts, however inconvenient, by their inhabitants, and
  4. clarifies that no part of this resolution other than Article a(iii) directly regulates the actual expression of opinions or other speech.
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]4[/TD][TD]7[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]
 
Last edited:
IFV

(my apologies, made this post while on the move between lunch and a training session.)
 
  • criminalising the holding of any opinion, even when the expression of that opinion would constitute a crime,
Click to expand...
@Tinhampton mind explaining the intended effect of this clause? I struggle to think of how people holding an opinion might be prejudiced against if they don't express their opinion; and on the other hand, what will this do if this does not prevent the criminalisation of expressing some of those opinions.
 
@Fregerson (pinging you so that I don't end up having to muddle about with multiple quote boxes) - the aim of Article a(i) is to ensure that freedom of conscience, a right that is distinct from freedom of expression, is protected in all circumstances by the World Assembly. Freedom of conscience is OOCly recognised in Article 19.1 of the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 10.1 of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

As the UN Human Rights Committee noted ten years ago about the ICCPR's freedom of conscience provisions:
9. Paragraph 1 of article 19 requires protection of the right to hold opinions without interference. This is a right to which the Covenant permits no exception or restriction. Freedom of opinion extends to the right to change an opinion whenever and for whatever reason a person so freely chooses. No person may be subject to the impairment of any rights under the Covenant on the basis of his or her actual, perceived or supposed opinions. All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature. It is incompatible with paragraph 1 to criminalize the holding of an opinion.The harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of a person, including arrest, detention, trial or imprisonment for reasons of the opinions they may hold, constitutes a violation of article 19, paragraph 1.

10. Any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited. Freedom to express one’s opinion necessarily includes freedom not to express one’s opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Against. The concerns are on clause (c), about not being able to have laws governing State Secrets/issues concerning national interests because those are facts. Also, posted a challenge looking at the contradictions with GA330
 
Just to go with the first line alone, there will be millions of opinions that the WA would permit expressing that would not be permitted in Victoria, Australia (whose laws cover NS)

Greater Cesnica:
I'm very curious to see the reasons why people are voting against.

For (Non-WA).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top