NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Nation,

The Damned People recently submitted a very prominent proposal for UN resolutions on the nature of the UN’s policy towards Protesters within nations. We would like to request that, as a regional delegate, you submit a vote for this policy in order to ensure that it comes before the UN assembly to be voted on. We feel that this is a very important and instrumental policy to be considered in constructing the general stance of the United Nations. If you have any problems with this proposal, please feel free to contact us.

To vote for the proposal, click on this link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal and scroll to the search bar at the bottom, and then search for ‘protesters’.

Thank you for your time and your vote.

-The Damned People

The actual resolution itself (the final draft) is posted on page 2 of this thread.

Illegal for House of Cards, and for threatening expulsion. In any case, I'd oppose this.

it looks like a lot of works gone into this.

however theres a possible house of cards violation straight away.

my replies are in bold

1. Peaceful protesters are not arrested, brutalized, or punished for a) the content of their expression or for b) choosing to exercise such free speech.

fair enough

2. Punishment for a) not obtaining proper protest permits, b) engaging in violent protest or civil disobedience, c) extending protest beyond national legal parameters be no more than arrest, imprisonment with bail, and court summons in accordance with the Universal Right to Due Process (including i) the right to be notified of reason for arrest, ii) the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, iii) the right to refrain from self-incrimination).

what if the protestors are shooting at police? are they supposed to use harsh language?

3. Protesters within their rights be unchallenged by law enforcement, and protests be uninhibited by law enforcement.

right. and if a nation feels that police need to be on hand to prevent trouble where does this leave them

4. Law enforcement establishes clear regulations concerning protests in order for an elimination of ambiguity and confusion whereas the establishing of demonstrations is concerned. This clear legislation includes regulations on a) time, b) place, c) size, d) volume, e) manner of such demonstrations.

blanket laws are not the way forward. every protest is different and can't be policed the same way

5. Law enforcement violating these conditions be a) removed from its position of enforcement, b) investigated thoroughly by an arbitrary judiciary for its infractions, c) not re-instated.

every case in law is different. you can't state a step by step approach for them

6. Law enforcement maintain the same regulations for all forms of demonstrations and protests, regardless of a) the makeup of protesting constituents, b) the message of said demonstrations, c) other distinctions between protests. The exception to the equality of such regulations be allowed for i) protests violating legal conditions, iii) protests justifiably likely to cause a violation of legal regulations.

not possible. see point 4

7. That, if the right to protest is denied, a) citizens have the right to an explanation of reasons for such a denial, b) citizens can challenge such a denial in front of an arbitrary judiciary, c) each denial must be treated on an individual basis.

fair enough

8. Governments refusing to comply with these regulations be expelled from the United Nations or forced to comply.

hell no. would you like to be expelled from the UN for breaking a resolution?

When you say "violent protest", there are certainly varying degrees of violence. For instance, placing a bomb in an abortion clinic is certainly a form of violent protest.

In Fourhearts, terrorist acts are punishable by the death penalty. This resolution would infringe our right to do such. Fourhearts would oppose this resolution for this reason.

Titus Chain - Ambassodor to the UN

house of cards violation straight away.

How? It expands on ideas of free speech and other human rights granted in previous resolutions, but this is the first resolution to directly address the rights of protesters and of protests, so it's not just building on another resolution.


what if the protestors are shooting at police? are they supposed to use harsh language?

That's covered under 'violent protest', obviously.


right. and if a nation feels that police need to be on hand to prevent trouble where does this leave them

That is not inhibiting the protest, thus not disallowed.


blanket laws are not the way forward. every protest is different and can't be policed the same way

That argument effectively destroys the purpose of UN Resolutions. At some point, it becomes necessary to create general guidelines, which is why legislation like this exists. What you are advocating is addressing each protest on an individual, case-by-case basis. Though that's an admirable way to approach it, it's unrealistically inefficient.


every case in law is different. you can't state a step by step approach for them

And why? This establishes harsh but fair penalties for those who violate the policy, and leaves room for interpretation by judiciary.

hell no. would you like to be expelled from the UN for breaking a resolution?[/quote]

If you're going to become a UN member, that means that you are, in effect, a signatory of a social contract. You're saying that signing onto such a contract and then breaking it should be the method all nations use to approach the UN? Obviously, this doesn't mean that moderators are going to start scouring the boards for UN violations, nor that UN members will be kicked out because of how they vote on issues, but maybe it will affect how a nation is categorized or it will make nations think twice about violating the regulations created here. Obviously, this resolution can't be put into practice by an arbitrary moderating force, but that clause is realistic considering that actual UN resolutions would include a similar clause.

When you say "violent protest", there are certainly varying degrees of violence. For instance, placing a bomb in an abortion clinic is certainly a form of violent protest.

In Fourhearts, terrorist acts are punishable by the death penalty. This resolution would infringe our right to do such. Fourhearts would oppose this resolution for this reason.

Titus Chain - Ambassodor to the UN

That would fall into a different category than protest, it would fall into 'terrorism'. Your nation is free to award the death penalty for 'terrorism', or for 'murder', or for 'destruction of property'. Meaning that this resolution does not impede such a right.

Secondly, this resolution states that all protesters outside of their rights may be summoned to appear before a court, which can, according to the resolution, impose the death penalty.

If you include the line about being expelled, it will be deleted. Past proposals have been deleted for suggesting this. RP what you want, but you can't threaten expulsion in a proposal. Obviously, I can't give a definitive word on this, but I'd bet a whole lot of staplers on it. The same goes for House of Cards: at the moment, it seems like you are expanding on the rights previously given, so I would remove the direct references, and simply state 'acknowledging the UN has enshrined the right to freedom of expression', or something.

Hmm... interesting points. I'll change the resolution if it gets deleted.

My point was that violent protest can be interpreted in a number of ways. If I have a protest in front of a animal testing lab and protesters are STONING the scientist, this is certainly a violent crime. In Fourhearts, violent crimes are not given bail, but the way the resolution is states, the government would have to grant the defendent bail. A violent protest, by defenition, precludes a violent act. With acts a violence, letting them out on bail is unacceptable.

Yes, but in the arrest, you don't have to classify reason of arrest as protest: you can classify it as assault, murder, manslaughter, homicide, attack, whatever you want. Then, you can kill the offender. This resolution only says that you may not murder an offender under the pretense of an arrest due to violent protest.

Again, complaining about the small text

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Rights Of Protesters

CITING Articles 2, 3, 5 and 9 of the Universal Bill of Rights (United Nations Resolution #26),

NOTING the Rights and Duties of UN States (United Nations Resolution # 49),

ACKNOWLEDGING that citizens will inherently be inclined to protest against their respective governments at certain periods,

WISHING to uphold freedom of speech, due process, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and assembly,

THE UNITED NATIONS REQUESTS THAT

1. Peaceful protesters are not arrested, brutalized, or punished for a) the content of their expression or for b) choosing to exercise such free speech.
2. Punishment for a) not obtaining proper protest permits, b) engaging in violent protest or civil disobedience, c) extending protest beyond national legal parameters be no more than arrest, imprisonment with bail, and court summons in accordance with the Universal Right to Due Process (including i) the right to be notified of reason for arrest, ii) the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, iii) the right to refrain from self-incrimination).
3. Protesters within their rights be unchallenged by law enforcement, and protests be uninhibited by law enforcement.
4. Law enforcement establishes clear regulations concerning protests in order for an elimination of ambiguity and confusion whereas the establishing of demonstrations is concerned. This clear legislation includes regulations on a) time, b) place, c) size, d) volume, e) manner of such demonstrations.
5. Law enforcement violating these conditions be a) removed from its position of enforcement, b) investigated thoroughly by an arbitrary judiciary for its infractions, c) not re-instated.
6. Law enforcement maintain the same regulations for all forms of demonstrations and protests, regardless of a) the makeup of protesting constituents, b) the message of said demonstrations, c) other distinctions between protests. The exception to the equality of such regulations be allowed for i) protests violating legal conditions, iii) protests justifiably likely to cause a violation of legal regulations.
7. That, if the right to protest is denied, a) citizens have the right to an explanation of reasons for such a denial, b) citizens can challenge such a denial in front of an arbitrary judiciary, c) each denial must be treated on an individual basis.
8. Governments refusing to comply with these regulations be expelled from the United Nations or forced to comply.[/size]


What does everyone think? Why do you support/oppose it? Should something be added? Other thoughts?

If you want, we can act realistically and emulate the actual UN, meaning that we can swap votes (you vote for mine I vote for yours).

8 is a Game Mechaincs violation. There is a questionable duplication with passed resolutions (Freedom of Choice, etc) or even perhaps a House of Cards on (if nothing else) Due Process

as well as being illegal on two counts the 'big stick style' proposal has also returned.

some of this i can agree with but this proposal tries to tell a nations courts what they can and can't do.

We would not let a violent criminal out on bail in Kirisubo. its also a requirement that 7 days notice is given to the local police force and council of a march or a protest.

if this isn't given its an illegal protest.

We find this proposal needless, as this sort of thing, as we find this to be covered adequately in the human rights resolution(s).

There is also a national sovreignty issue, if countries will insist on beating up protestors, then they will store up trouble, leading to a revolution and a progession of humanity, forcing this upon people will take much much longer to work.

Needless to say, we do not endorse this proposal.

8. Governments refusing to comply with these regulations be expelled from the United Nations or forced to comply.The HoC is debatable, but this is clearly illegal. Compliance is automatic anyway.

The HoC is debatable, but this is clearly illegal. Compliance is automatic anyway.

Is it possible to take that out of the resolution?

Moderators have the power to delete, not edit. That happy power remains yours alone and can only be implemented through the process of resubmission - though considering you just had two bad proposals in one day, I recommend you keep drafting before you resubmit.

Mods can't edit Proposals; only delete them, which I'm about to do now.

Alright, thanks for the help. I will resubmit that proposal.

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Rights Of Protesters

CITING provisions made for freedom of speech, assembly, and due process in Articles 2, 3, 5 and 9 of the Universal Bill of Rights (United Nations Resolution #26),

NOTING the Rights and Duties of UN States (United Nations Resolution # 49),

ACKNOWLEDGING that citizens will inherently be inclined to protest against their respective governments at certain periods,

WISHING to uphold freedom of speech, due process, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and assembly,

THE UNITED NATIONS REQUESTS THAT

1. Peaceful protesters are not arrested, brutalized, or punished for a) the content of their expression or for b) choosing to exercise such free speech.

2. Punishment for a) not obtaining proper protest permits, b) engaging in violent protest or civil disobedience, c) extending protest beyond national legal parameters be no more than arrest, imprisonment with bail, and court summons in accordance with the Universal Right to Due Process (including i) the right to be notified of reason for arrest, ii) the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, iii) the right to refrain from self-incrimination). No restrictions are to be made on the powers or processes of national courts, and those imprisoned may be held or otherwise dealt with on charges unrelated to protesting.

3. Protesters within their rights be unchallenged by law enforcement, and protests be uninhibited by law enforcement if said protests have been approved to take place by government.

4. Law enforcement establishes clear regulations concerning protests (on a general or specific level) in order for an elimination of ambiguity and confusion whereas the establishing of demonstrations is concerned. This clear legislation includes regulations on a) time, b) place, c) size, d) volume, e) manner of such demonstrations.

5. Law enforcement violating these conditions be investigated thoroughly by an arbitrary judiciary for its infractions which may remove it from its position of enforcement,.

6. Law enforcement maintain the same regulations for all forms of demonstrations and protests, regardless of a) the makeup of protesting constituents, b) the message of said demonstrations, c) other distinctions between protests. The exception to the equality of such regulations be allowed for i) protests violating legal conditions, iii) protests justifiably likely to cause a violation of legal regulations.

7. That, if the right to protest is denied, a) citizens have the right to an explanation of reasons for such a denial, b) citizens can challenge such a denial in front of an arbitrary judiciary, c) each denial must be treated on an individual basis.

Ok, normal practice is to keep all your drafts in the same thread until you have a finalized and already submitted draft that you think has a good shot - perhaps you might even use the same thread all the way to the UN floor. Either way, don't make 10 threads for 10 drafts. You can edit the first post so the most recent draft is shown, I suggest using it. Or you could do as Gruen did on his repeal thread and say "most recent draft is on post X"

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Rights Of Protesters

CITING provisions made for freedom of speech, assembly, and due process in Articles 2, 3, 5 and 9 of the Universal Bill of Rights (United Nations Resolution #26),

Cringing on a House of Cards there.....

NOTING the Rights and Duties of UN States (United Nations Resolution # 49),

Fine, though I'd personally remove the resolution number

ACKNOWLEDGING that citizens will inherently be inclined to protest against their respective governments at certain periods,

Agreed

WISHING to uphold freedom of speech, due process, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and assembly,

Suggest you also note resolutions 27, 41, 53, and I think it's 117 (Freedom of Conscious)- or see if they are relevant enough to be noted

THE UNITED NATIONS REQUESTS THAT

*groans

1. Peaceful protesters are not arrested, brutalized, or punished for a) the content of their expression or for b) choosing to exercise such free speech.

Done, done, done

2. Punishment for a) not obtaining proper protest permits, b) engaging in violent protest or civil disobedience, c) extending protest beyond national legal parameters be no more than arrest, imprisonment with bail, and court summons in accordance with the Universal Right to Due Process (including i)

Houe of Cards violation.....I think

the right to be notified of reason for arrest, ii) the right to protection from cruel and unusual punishment, iii) the right to refrain from self-incrimination).

This is the only reason HoC isn't certain....

No restrictions are to be made on the powers or processes of national courts, and those imprisoned may be held or otherwise dealt with on charges unrelated to protesting.

Ok

3. Protesters within their rights be unchallenged by law enforcement, and protests be uninhibited by law enforcement if said protests have been approved to take place by government.

Good

4. Law enforcement establishes clear regulations concerning protests (on a general or specific level) in order for an elimination of ambiguity and confusion whereas the establishing of demonstrations is concerned. This clear legislation includes regulations on a) time, b) place, c) size, d) volume, e) manner of such demonstrations.

Ok

5. Law enforcement violating these conditions be investigated thoroughly by an arbitrary judiciary for its infractions which may remove it from its position of enforcement,.

.....Not so good, legal but touchy

6. Law enforcement maintain the same regulations for all forms of demonstrations and protests, regardless of a) the makeup of protesting constituents, b) the message of said demonstrations, c) other distinctions between protests. The exception to the equality of such regulations be allowed for i) protests violating legal conditions, iii) protests justifiably likely to cause a violation of legal regulations.

Ok

]QUOTE]7. That, if the right to protest is denied, a) citizens have the right to an explanation of reasons for such a denial, b) citizens can challenge such a denial in front of an arbitrary judiciary, c) each denial must be treated on an individual basis.[/QUOTE]

Loophole alert, but otherwise ok.

So would you (not will you) vote for it, overall?

I am possibly one of the pickiest people on these forums when it comes to style, and there is an element to your style that's just absolutely bugging me - personally, I think it's spacing (eg: put a, b, c each on their own seperate lines). I have refused to vote for resolutions before based upon style. If you submitted as-is, I would actually put that as my number one reason to vote against it.

There is also something about it that's just bugging me in terms of actual content - I'm not sure if it's just the HoC or if it's something else. It might be the "why bother, we already have this" and then list off 20 different resolutions, but I'm not sure.

Alright. Thanks so much for your feedback. I'll attempt to structure future proposals in a more suitable manner; as you can tell, I'm new to the process.

We would oppose this proposal, mainly for the following article:

1. Peaceful protesters are not arrested, brutalized, or punished for a) the content of their expression or for b) choosing to exercise such free speech.

This article does not address the issue of obscenity, or defamatory or "hate" speech, all of which is illegal in Our nation. Peaceful protestors are welcomed by Our government, but We demand that they be polite. This resolution would give license to all manner of rudeness and offensive behavior.

This article does not address the issue of obscenity, or defamatory or "hate" speech, all of which is illegal in Our nation. Peaceful protestors are welcomed by Our government, but We demand that they be polite. This resolution would give license to all manner of rudeness and offensive behavior.

Actually, I'd argue that you can't demand that they be polite, under this:

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

So no, I'd say that the UBoR was the resolution that gave license to all manner of rudeness and offensive behavior, not this one.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

I'm a bit confused by the references to "an arbitrary judiciary": Is "an independent judiciary" what's actually meant here?

OOC: I haven't looked at this closely yet, but I suspect a significant amount is redundant thanks to Freedom of Conscience (not Conscious, Forgottenlands, ya schmo).

4. Law enforcement establishes clear regulations concerning protests (on a general or specific level) in order for an elimination of ambiguity and confusion whereas the establishing of demonstrations is concerned. This clear legislation includes regulations on a) time, b) place, c) size, d) volume, e) manner of such demonstrations.

We are glad to see this added into this one as we have seen this come up in real as to the state/city/county having a right to set such to protestors. It here ended in court where the protestors lost but it cost time and money out of all tax payers pockets. The folks protesting were not local tax payers so they didn't have to pay for their actions in the way of local tax money spent on this instead of other projects.



7. That, if the right to protest is denied, a) citizens have the right to an explanation of reasons for such a denial, b) citizens can challenge such a denial in front of an arbitrary judiciary, c) each denial must be treated on an individual basis.

Here we forget that the right to free speach and assembly is for all people not just those having a gripe against somebody else. Thus if you want to protest an event that interfers with the right to speak and assembly of another person then that is cause to say no to you.. As it would give cause to add to the cost of the event to add additional security to protect all involved and somebody has to pay for this.


Here since you want to protest the bill for this would go to you... not be put on the citizens of the nation or the group holding their event that you want to protest. So if you can provided or pay for the proper security for protection of all sides then you can have it. This needs to be added some place about who pays for security in such matters and just who provides security and what security is provided. As didn't see that in it.... As here if you have an event of any nature you pay a fee to have it that covers security for such.. this is usualy special duty law officers that work it as a means to augment their income or reserve officers working it to use as a training task to learn to deal with crowd control or special events..... Thus works for all concerned.. but a protest would require special security issue thus additional cost... and conciderations.

I'm a bit confused by the references to "an arbitrary judiciary": Is "an independent judiciary" what's actually meant here?

Yes.

3. Protesters within their rights be unchallenged by law enforcement, and protests be uninhibited by law enforcement.
<humor>
Within my nation, "crowds of flag-burning protesters tend to accidentally become crowds of burning protesters".

Since my firefighters have the power of arrest under certain circumstances, does that make them "law enforcement" who must not interfere with the protesters' right to self-immolation, or can I have them go ahead and put out the fires?
</humor>

(sorry, just noticed that line about the protesters in the synopsis of my nation, and thought of this thread)

OOC: I haven't looked at this closely yet, but I suspect a significant amount is redundant thanks to Freedom of Conscience (not Conscious, Forgottenlands, ya schmo).

Hmm......good idea for a future resolution :P

Bump.

Yes.

It's just that the only definition of "arbitrary" with which I was previously familiar meant something along the lines of "not bound to follow any set of established rules", which seems to be the opposite of what you're aiming at with this proposal...