NationStates Jolt Archive

Hopefully, this proposal does better than my last one. If you are a UN delegate, please consider approving this. Well, here it is:

OBSERVING there are incidents during protests where crowd control goes to far and people become injured, and

REALIZING that there are some governments who do not allow protests because of absolute rule, we

PROPOSE that every citizen has the right to protest.

Terms:
1. No person should be severely harmed or killed while protesting
2. Police are only allowed to use force if and only if the protest becomes violent
3. No person will be discriminated from protesting

Hopefully, this proposal does better than my last one. If you are a UN delegate, please consider approving this. Well, here it is:

OBSERVING there are incidents during protests where crowd control goes to far and people become injured, and

REALIZING that there are some governments who do not allow protests because of absolute rule, we

PROPOSE that every citizen has the right to protest.

Terms:
1. No person should be severely harmed or killed while protesting
2. Police are only allowed to use force if and only if the protest becomes violent
3. No person will be discriminated from protesting

Thank you for posting the text of the proposal. :)

I would suggest a couple of wording changes if you end up resubmitting.
Maybe you could change "police" into something more general like "law enforcement officials". The "3. No person will be discriminated from protesting" seems to be redundant in light of the "PROPOSE that every citizen has the right to protest". Perhaps you meant to do that for emphasis, and if that's the case just ignore that point. :)

Hopefully, this proposal does better than my last one. If you are a UN delegate, please consider approving this. Well, here it is:

OBSERVING there are incidents during protests where crowd control goes to far and people become injured, and

REALIZING that there are some governments who do not allow protests because of absolute rule, we

PROPOSE that every citizen has the right to protest.

Terms:
1. No person should be severely harmed or killed while protesting
2. Police are only allowed to use force if and only if the protest becomes violent
3. No person will be discriminated from protesting

I take it that if, while protesting, the protesters do anything illegal the police are allowed to intervene was well? For example if they are not actually being violent (so to speak) but are stealing things from shops or market carts along the way?

Further more - given the recently enacted self-defence resolution, clause 1 might be under issue. If the police, or other protesters, find their life is in danger from a protester, they would now, in theory, have the right to kill them if it was deemed necessary.

I agree no one should be harmed or killed FOR protesting, but not necessarily WHILE protesting.

Add in a clause to allow them to be arrested for crimes committed while protesting, such as stealing from stores or openly threatening people's lives. While this will open up a possibility of abuse, that possibility exists anyway and this simply allows nations to help control crime.

I have no problems with people being allowed to protest. Hell, I'm a dictatorship that passes out military-grade weapons to its citizens. If they decided to remove the government, I doubt it'd be that difficult.

I take it that if, while protesting, the protesters do anything illegal the police are allowed to intervene was well? For example if they are not actually being violent (so to speak) but are stealing things from shops or market carts along the way?

Further more - given the recently enacted self-defence resolution, clause 1 might be under issue. If the police, or other protesters, find their life is in danger from a protester, they would now, in theory, have the right to kill them if it was deemed necessary.

I agree no one should be harmed or killed FOR protesting, but not necessarily WHILE protesting.

Self-defense does not mean you have to kill someone, and yes, when I said violent, that was a general term for "getting out of hand."

Thank you for posting the text of the proposal. :)

I would suggest a couple of wording changes if you end up resubmitting.
Maybe you could change "police" into something more general like "law enforcement officials". The "3. No person will be discriminated from protesting" seems to be redundant in light of the "PROPOSE that every citizen has the right to protest". Perhaps you meant to do that for emphasis, and if that's the case just ignore that point. :)

It was partly meant for emphasis but more for the racism aspect. A government can't take it out against protesters of a particular race and leave the other ones alone. The only exception is if the protesters of that particular race are doing illegal things and the others aren't.

Grand idea, unless they are southerners, then no, they whinge too much anyway.

Grand idea, unless they are southerners, then no, they whinge too much anyway.

Whinge? :confused:

Whinge? :confused:
British term for whine.

British term for whine.

Thanks Bob. I always like to learn British terminology. :)

Self-defense does not mean you have to kill someone, and yes, when I said violent, that was a general term for "getting out of hand."

I know they do not have to kill them, but if its necessary....

But as long as nothing in this permits people to commit crimes and get away with them under the claim that they are "protesting" I have no problem with it.

Although you could argue you are protesting the local shops high prices by stealing from them. You don't think that would be covered, do you?

There is only one thought, one ideology, one party and one vision - BALEN-COLLECTIVISM.

Protesting is completely illegal.

I know they do not have to kill them, but if its necessary....

But as long as nothing in this permits people to commit crimes and get away with them under the claim that they are "protesting" I have no problem with it.

Although you could argue you are protesting the local shops high prices by stealing from them. You don't think that would be covered, do you?

I'm not sure. That's an interesting point now that I think of it. Supposedly if the people returned the items and we forced the store to lower their prices within reason. If they continue to protest by stealing then people could be taken into custody.

I'm not sure. That's an interesting point now that I think of it. Supposedly if the people returned the items and we forced the store to lower their prices within reason. If they continue to protest by stealing then people could be taken into custody.

No - cause once they have stolen something, they have commited a crime and should be arrested. I don't care if they are protesting something or not - the right to protest does not extend to committing theft, murder, rape, vandalism or anything else other than marches, singing songs, waving banners, holding rallys and so forth.

No - cause once they have stolen something, they have commited a crime and should be arrested. I don't care if they are protesting something or not - the right to protest does not extend to committing theft, murder, rape, vandalism or anything else other than marches, singing songs, waving banners, holding rallys and so forth.

Well, that's your opinion and I respect it. I didn't cover about the crime that might occur during a protest, so it's up to you on what you want to do.

Terms:
1. No person should be severely harmed or killed while protesting
2. Police are only allowed to use force if and only if the protest becomes violent
3. No person will be discriminated from protesting

This is a reasonable extention to the free speech generally granted to citizens of our individual nations; relatively useless in a free society, but certainly a safeguard against a potential totalitarian state.

Well, that's your opinion and I respect it. I didn't cover about the crime that might occur during a protest, so it's up to you on what you want to do.

It might not be - part 2 says the police can not use force unless the protest turns violent. So that could prevent them from arresting anyone who didn't come quietly.

Maybe I am just being too picky :}

Perhaps :D . Let me rephrase that. I covered a part of the crime aspect, but left the rest alone.

To all involved with this thread, the proposal did not get enough votes but I still want your opinions so I can make a revised draft.

Furhterment of Democracy I assume?

One problem. What about intimidation? Take a RL example: Huntingdon Life Sciences near Cambridge in England does testing on animals, and recently the government passed legislation restricting the right to protest in general, because militant animal rights protesters were using intimidation and scare tactics against the scientists working there. This is a different form of protest than the standard 'people in the streets', and one that doesn't appear to be covered. Apart from that, nice one.

Furhterment of Democracy I assume?

One problem. What about intimidation? Take a RL example: Huntingdon Life Sciences near Cambridge in England does testing on animals, and recently the government passed legislation restricting the right to protest in general, because militant animal rights protesters were using intimidation and scare tactics against the scientists working there. This is a different form of protest than the standard 'people in the streets', and one that doesn't appear to be covered. Apart from that, nice one.

Human rights, actually. It leans more towards civil rights. I suppose that furtherment of democracy would be okay, but human rights sounded better. After all, the title is "Right to Protest."

This proposal was intended for protests of any form, and if any protest gets out of hand (which would include intimidation), the police are allowed to bring lawbreakers into custody.

Human rights, actually. It leans more towards civil rights. I suppose that furtherment of democracy would be okay, but human rights sounded better. After all, the title is "Right to Protest."

This proposal was intended for protests of any form, and if any protest gets out of hand (which would include intimidation), the police are allowed to bring lawbreakers into custody.

I don't think the right to protest is a human right. Not in an organized way at least. So I would stick with furtherment of democracy :}

True. Human rights and civil rights are different.

Taken from resolution #26 the Universial bill of rights

[quote]Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.[quote]

If you re-submitt you might want to tie that in.

True. Human rights and civil rights are different.
Although the subtext of the Human Rights resolution category says A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights. - implying that for the puposes of the NSUN they are linked. This one's on the borderline, but since I feel that the right to protest - in effect the right to complain - is a matter of free speech, and probably under 'Furtherment of Democracy'. That's just me though, and its your resolution Jaghur.

You know, I wish the UN wasn't so picky. Then I could probably find one between furtherment of democracy and human rights.

I don't think a "Right to Protest" is really necessary, since it should be up to individual nations how and to the extent at which they deal with protesting and protestors.

If they get unruly, water cannons. Which, in antarctic conditions, is rather harsh and occasionally fatal.