[GA - Defeated] Repeal "Right to Assemble"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Repeal "Right to Assemble"
Category: Repeal | GA #537
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Protecting Peaceful Assembly​

The General Assembly finds the following:

  1. GA#27 "Freedom of Assembly" was repealed by GA#536 to facilitate GA#537 "Right to Assemble." The goal of GA#537, to protect peaceful assembly subject to certain conditions, is admirable and largely achieved by its first four Articles; yet this does not mean that they are perfect, nor does its Article 5 promote efficient use of state resources.
  2. GA#537, unlike GA#27, establishes no positive right to organise or partake in "non-violent assembl[ies]," only negative rights for their organisers and participants. (Article 1 guarantees that they will not receive "punitive or discriminatory action" by a member state for so organising or participating; Article 2 requires that such assemblies not be "prevent[ed] or hinder[ed]" by "member states nor private entities within them.") Any ideal legislation on this matter would seek to establish both positive and negative rights to peaceful assembly.
  3. These negative rights are not unconditional but may be abrogated so that assemblies which involve "harmful activities" may be controlled. However, Article 3 allows only "advocacy of violence towards an individual or group," "unlawful action" and "advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action" to be deemed harmful activities, while Article 2 allows peaceful assemblies to be broken up solely in order to "prevent[] or curtail[] harmful activities." This means that many of GA#536's concerns about when assemblies could be broken up under GA#27 are left unanswered by GA#537: for example, those members where blocking the passage of emergency service vehicles like ambulances is not illegal cannot temporarily break up assemblies to unblock their passage (which puts lives and property at indirect risk in such members), while members cannot generally prevent assemblies that occur in locations or situations demonstrably hazardous to the health of their participants.
  4. Article 5 of GA#537 has two parts. Article 5a permits members to restrict "non-violent assemblies" that promote "actions or inaction that would constitute: the physical or sexual abuse of an individual or group of individuals, or hatred towards an individual or group" due to their possession of an arbitrary and reductive characteristic. Article 5b compels members who opt not to impose such restrictions to "take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by such advocacy."
  5. Concerningly, Article 5 concerningly does not define what counts as "hatred," what precise forms "abuse" can take, and what a "necessary" safety measure is, allowing unscrupulous governments to adopt overly broad definitions and suppress assemblies they merely find distasteful on those pretexts. Nor are members exempt from their Article 5b obligations just because a local police force acts to "prevent or curtail the advocacy" of any "actions or inaction" proscribed by Article 5a on its own, encouraging central government intervention in law enforcement even if all police forces are organised and empowered solely on the local scale.
  6. GA#440 "Administrative Compliance Act" implicitly requires members to sanction other members that do not satisfy Article 5b, and forbids future resolutions from time-limiting such sanctions or banning their imposition on certain goods. Resolutions that entail such drastic measures for members who refuse to suppress (or else "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by") speech that may not even violate their own national laws, let alone other international laws, should not be kept on the books.
  7. Article 5's shortcomings are so significant that, in order to avoid such sanctions, a member state which (for instance) chooses to permit an assembly calling for all of its inhabitants who hail from a particular nation to be repatriated there, which can be interpreted as promoting "hatred... motivated by... nationality," may have to supply guards on a temporary basis to protect those inhabitants' houses because it will "ensure the[ir] safety." This may be hard to deliver, given that no resolution requires data disaggregated by national origin to be collected for any reason. But they must somehow still seek to "ensure the safety of [those] individuals" even if some such inhabitants do not want home security, since they may see its provision as necessary for those inhabitants' safety.
  8. GA#537 is unwieldy, unfit for purpose and - since this body can neither amend Article 3, insert a new Article explicitly protecting peaceful assembly, nor remove Article 5 only - must be repealed entirely.
The GA therefore repeals GA#537 "Right to Assemble."
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
01401
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution aims to repeal the resolution "Right to Assemble", citing numerous "flaws" with the proposal. The repeal first denounces the target for only granting negative rights. It then argues that the exceptions are both too narrow and too vague, such as asserting that the target prevents member nations from "temporarily [breaking] up assemblies to unblock [ambulances'] passage", and that there is ambiguity regarding what constitutes "hatred" or "abuse". It also asserts it undesirable for the resolution to require member nations to "ensure the safety of the individuals targeted by" hate speech should they not suppress such speech, citing an example that member nations which allow an assembly demanding immigrants from a certain nation to be repatriated "may have to supply guards on a temporary basis to protect those inhabitants' houses".

Recommendation
Given how the resolution guarantees the right to assemble, we find that the repeal fails to make a coherent or compelling case on why we should repeal it. The given arguments are absurd edge cases which should not even be considered as reasons for repealing the target resolution. For example, any reasonable nation should have laws that make blocking the passage of emergency vehicles illegal. Likewise, the argument that the resolution is flawed because it grants "only negative rights" does not adequately convince us on why the resolution should be repealed.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Repeal 'Right to Assemble'."
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
Against, per my dissection of the arguments on the forum. This also reads more like a personal blog than a repeal.
Click to expand...

Not illegal I guess to do a point by point philosophical rebuttal of Maowi's resolution, unless Gensec says otherwise.

Tinhampton:
I am here, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Do you have a succinct summary of why Maowi's version is inferior to yours? I mean, I can put the GA#20 repeal to just one line: "we are doing an R&R because GA#20 assumes an accomplice to a pirate is guilty unless they can proof they were threatened at pain of death to work as an accomplice, even rape or torture don't count".

That's more straight forward and an easier sell.

We've got like 20 something pending resolutions now, it's much harder to get everyone to read carefully to grasp the nuances. I only caught the factoid that Maowi looked at your replacement and that's it.

Maybe a table or something?
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
I'm not saying that it's "illegal".
Click to expand...

I clarify myself, I mean I think Tin is entitled to do a repeal like this unless Gensec says otherwise. The "illegal"" bit was referring to a potential Gensec decision, not about you. It's an unusual style though.
 
Last edited:
Simone_Republic:
Do you have a succinct summary of why Maowi's version is inferior to yours? I mean, I can put the GA#20 repeal to just one line: "we are doing an R&R because GA#20 assumes an accomplice to a pirate is guilty unless they can proof they were threatened at pain of death to work as an accomplice, even rape or torture don't count".
Click to expand...
Flagrantly C&Ped from my NS forum post on the matter. Two points!

1. 537's definition of harmful activities are too narrow: for instance, it does not generally allow assemblies to be broken up where they are organised in a manner that threatens participant health.

2. 537 contains overreaching sections on offensive assemblies - the expressive substance of which is not banned by WA law in and of itself - that require member states to choose between suppressing them before they happen, allowing them and then having to implement potentially demanding safety measures, or non-compliance. Mine does not: it focuses on when assembly is appropriate.
 
(Non-WA) I don’t like the formatting, but personal preference in terms of aesthetics is not a real barrier to the quality of a proposal. The arguments have convinced me. Therefore, I will vote for the repeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top