NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom of Assembly
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process,

TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Universal_Bill_of_Rights), which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions has moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting in harm to other people or the destruction of public or private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the harm of others or the destruction of public or private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views in appropriate venues, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and coordination of political opposition organizations, which should be permitted to advocate radical changes in their existing government or political system,

4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political organization that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.

You have my full support.

Draft Proposal
The Freedom of Assembly resolution was based on a proposal, Freedom of Extreme Beliefs, originally submitted by North Suffolk in August 2006. The UN Secretariat from the Most Glorious Hack called attention to the idea behind North Suffolk's proposal which lead to a number of UN members working on a more comprehensive draft proposal. Unfortunately, when Mikitivity contacted North Suffolk to arrange a collaboration, North Suffolk was no longer available. In a matter of weeks a final working draft, titled Freedom of Assembly had been agreed upon by an ad hoc committee composed of Ambassadors and diplomatic staff from a number of nations.

For more information on the draft proposal:
Link to Draft Proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492256)

Telegram Campaign
The Freedom of Assembly proposal was first submitted to the proposal queue in mid-August 2006. The proposal did not go through any significant changes. Twice, its sponsoring nation, Mikitivity, carpetted hundreds of UN Delegates with telegrams seeking support. After 7 submissions to the proposal queue, the proposal established quorum on Mon Sep 25 2006.

NSWiki
A stub article has been created on the NSWiki community archive:
Freedom of Assembly (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Freedom_of_Assembly)

At this point in time, the pending debate should be limited to the UN Floor, but the article will feature a few select key position statements and points raised through the entire process. Voting in the attached poll will also be incorporated into the article after voting has completed.

Reference Materials
The Universal Bill of Rights (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Universal_Bill_of_Rights) -- Resolution #26 briefly mentioned the right to assembly, but did not specifically justify the need for this right, nor elaborate on the key conditions of this right.





On behalf of the people of Mikitivity and the nations that participated in the draft proposal process, I'd like to thank all of the Delegates and UN Members that have participated in this entire process. I'd also like to especially thank the UN Secretariat from the Most Glorious Hack for pointing out the potential in original proposal.

Vielen Dank,
Howie T. Katzman, Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

This resolution ROCKS!

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

This is indeed a wonderful resolution, Ambassador Katzman! Best of luck.

Benedictions,

While I am saddened at the use of the term "ASSERTS that ... should" is used instead of a more powerful one, I am pleased with the Resolution and will be voting for.

I also like that poll. It's a very excellent and professional poll. Have a Klondike.

We should decrease the amount of "freedom" and "democracy", more freedom to me personally, thats what I say!

On behalf of the Region Smoche
Psycho Harmony:fluffle:

I am certainly in support of this proposal but am currently bound as the Delegate the region to base my UN Vote on the will of my region.

Will Note my vote once I have voted

I think the key phrase here is "CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process."

The Constitutional Monarchy of Vervkaland agrees that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process. However, we are against the democratic process. That's why we have a constitutional monarchy! We have outlawed all political freedoms and do not need the UN to impose a bill telling us how our governments should be run. Our people like our way of governance and have good civil rights without democracy. We allow opposition groups to have a voice as far as policy, but we draw the line at political opposition groups.

Therefore, I am in fierce opposition to this UN proposal, and have registered a "no" vote, and encourage all to do so. This should be left up to the individual countries, not mandated by the UN.

My country supports this proposal. While we do not believe that democracy itself should be mandatory, a healthy debate of ideas, and freedom of expression, should be encouraged.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9293/zyryanovunbzw0.jpg
Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This has my full support.


-The Democratic Republic of Klouch

Statement from the Imperial Ministry for Foreign Affairs-- U.N. Mission

While the Grand Imperium of Risban realizes that many nations hold these 'political freedoms' and such dear to their hearts, it does not support that certain democratic ideology being imposed upon the Grand Imperium. Our people enjoy a fantastic economic life and good civil liberties, but the Grand Imperium maintains that the Imperial Government is much more apt at ruling the nation-state than the common person and will not allow them to democratically elect individuals and totally reform our government. Likewise, whilst freedom of speech and such is indeed allowed, as are rallies and such, the right to assemble and protest government actions has, in the passed, led to riots and, in the most extreme case, rebellion within the Grand Imperium of Risban. As such, the Grand Imperium is very cautious about letting such opposition assemble in one place.

Thus, the Grand Imperium deems this an attempt to dictate our political ideologies and votes against this resolution.

Signed,
~Lord Kenneth Fowl, Imperial Ambassador to the United Nations and Delegate of Greater Dienstad
~Viscount Matthew Dolohov, Deputy Minister to the United Nations

This is a world, where poeple are free to run their governments as they see fit. Promoting Democracy is the downright stupidest idea yet. There are innumerable dictatorships, religious and corporately founded states, and states where public assembly and democracy just won't work. There are kingdoms and feudal systems, and many many other types of government where the promotion of democracy is downright harmful. To pass this resolution is to claim your system is better than everyone else's, and thats jsut not the spirit of this world at all.

Promoting Democracy is the downright stupidest idea yet.

Actually, the "Promotion of Solar Panels" resolution is still the record-holder for stupidest idea yet.

To pass this resolution is to claim your system is better than everyone else's, and thats jsut not the spirit of this world at all.

Oh, how I wish that were true. The spirit of this world has long involved the imposition of some folk's views on other folks, especially in the United Nations. If you want that to change, feel free to work towards that goal.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I oppose because yet again, the U.N. likes to step on other nations. The resolution fails to realize is having these extremist rallys often times causes regular people to go and riot. I do not want this to happen on my streets. It also fails to put into account non-democratic nations and infringes on their rights as well. So if this is passed, my nation will oppose this legislation by refusing to abide by it. So I :sniper: this resolution.

Well done, we have voted FOR this resolution. :)

This is a world, where poeple are free to run their governments as they see fit. Promoting Democracy is the downright stupidest idea yet. There are innumerable dictatorships, religious and corporately founded states, and states where public assembly and democracy just won't work. There are kingdoms and feudal systems, and many many other types of government where the promotion of democracy is downright harmful. To pass this resolution is to claim your system is better than everyone else's, and thats jsut not the spirit of this world at all.

Actually it is clear you are basing your beliefs on a flawed assumption of the resolution by-line without actually reading the resolution's text. As the ambassador from Ariddia has politely pointed out, this resolution is not about making democracy mandatory, but essentially giving existing political opposition groups the means to seek peaceful means to change their system. Furthermore, the ambassador from Norderia pointed out that their government feels this resolution is too weak and does not go far enough to promote democracy. And yet from both sides of the political spectrum, Ariddia and Norderia admitted that the basic concept here is sound.

While campaigning for this resolution several UN Delegates asked my office why their governments, which essentially find democratic processes inefficent should consider endorsing a "Furtherment of Democracy" resolution ... and one notable opponent to the proposal was the region of Gatesville.

However, my answer was two fold ... there are domestic and international benefits from granting the concept of the right to assemble (which is really the right of political free speech and organization) throughout UN members.

Since this is a UN resolution, I'll cover in brief the international benefit first. Essentially the right to assembly is a way to counteract disenfranchisement. With disenfranchisement, comes political and social unrest. Democracies and dictatorships alike are subject to this condition. At an international level, citizens move. They travel. They slowly build connections with neighbors. And if you are a society that prohibits the legal organization of opposition parties in your nation, you actually create a situation where you LOSE full control, as ex-patriots will move from your country to a neighbor that grants a higher degree of political freedoms. (OOC: Real-life example: Cuba ... Cuban-Americans are a political bloc to be recognized with, and have always taken a hard line in the determination of UN policy towards Castro's government.) What could happen is a terrorist or patriot organization could be created in a location where it is protected by LAW and where your nation will have less ability to protect itself. Essentially political ideas do not limit themselves to borders any more than people do.

The problem is that when one nation permits or legalises an extreme political group that focuses on another sovereign nation, that creates regional tensions (OOC: RL: Cuba-USA, Israel-Syria/Iraq/Iran/Lebanon/Egypt, the Balkans throughout the past 1,000 years, France-vs-UK in North America, Ireland, etc.). Part of the point of the United Nations is to seek the best ways to reduce regional tensions and promote peace and trade. In essence, all of our nations have an interest in cooling down conflicts between nations, and one of the means at our disposal is to encourage nations to make ex-patriotism a less attractive idea by opening up all of our governments to the freedom for citizens to complain about things.

Perhaps here it is best to say, "Sticks and stones will hurt our bones, but names will never hurt us."

The second argument in favour I proposed to the Gatesville delegate is the idea that domestic unrest can be reduced simply by giving opposition parties a chance to organize. The resolution doesn't tell you how to do this, nor does it state, "Opposition parties must rule your nation". It merely (as the Norderian Ambassador pointed out) encourages the concept of freedom to organize.

That said, I'd like to yield the remander of my time to Cassandra Thonberger, the Deputy UN Ambassador from Mikitivity, to talk about why my government is sponsoring this resolution.

Thank you,
Howie T. Katzman

Love and esterel voted FOR this proposal.

Thank you Ambassador Katzman.

Earlier I had addressed the North Pacific regional bloc on this subject by focusing on our government's motivation for sponsoring this resolution. The short answer is Mikitivity has not always granted freedom of assembly, and the result has been the formation of violent organizations bent upon forcing political change. We found that by giving people a political voice that we undermined the attractiveness of violent organizations ... that we essentially made it harder for secret societies to recruit angry people who felt they were disenfranchised, and that domestically this actually resulted in more security.

[OOC: If fewer Palestinian youth felt as though they had no hope, groups like Al Qaeda would have a harder time convincing them to become suicide bombers.]

So the longer story ... how Mikitivity came to this position is via experience.

I'd like to read the text of the speech I presented to the North Pacific earlier today:
Mikitivity was not always a single, centralized government. Today my government is still a loose confederation of cantons ... and the cantons were roughly organized around medieval city-states such as Miervatia City, Nolanburg, St. Claire, etc.

In the 18th century, the most influenical canton in a large portion of the International Democratic Union was Miervatia ... which was naturally the territory controlled by Miervatia City. In order to protect the city from massive floods Miervatia essentially established and controlled another city along the Risden River (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Risden_River), Mezoic. The problem was that the people who lived and worked in Mezoic and the Aslan territory felt as though they had no political say.

In the mid-1700s a man by the name of Paul Viser began advocating for political autonomy for Aslan from Miervatia and formed a group some called a patriotict secret society and what others called a terrorist organization: the Aslan Faction (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Aslan_Faction). At first Aslan Faction was responsible for burning buildings and property, sometimes beating people that supported Miervatian rule, but their actions had a negative impact of strengthing the resolve of the Miervatian leadership of the city and canton. Miervatia came to think of Aslan as being rather barbaric.

In 1749 a blizzard cut a poorly supplied Mezoic off from Miervatia City, and hundreds died. Protests followed, and Viser was arrested the following year on charges of sedation. However, from prison, he and the Aslan Faction managed to sabbotage the flood control system along the Risden River, such that on a day now known as Der Blitzfluss in Mikitivity, massive floods ended up killing hundreds of people and displacing thousands. While these numbers sound small, it should be pointed out that Mikitivity has always had a rather sparse population to begin with.

In any event, the immediate response was a complete occupation of Mezoic by a coalition of police forces from all of the cantons downstream of Aslan along the Risden River ... and the idea "Nitch Wieder" became popular in many cantons, and civil liberties in Aslan and other cantons were slowly taken away by Night Watchs interested in establishing security and peace.

Conflicts and acts of sabotage continued for years, until in 1796 Aslan was established as an independent canton with its own seat of government. And Aslan Faction essentially ceased to exist as a terrorist organization at that point (though today it is rumoured to still be a secret political organization).

In essence, the history of Mikitivity shows that regardless of the political style of a government, that when people don't have the right to organize political opposition parties, that they will resort to extreme and violent means. This resolution is an attempt to reinforce an idea that was briefly mentioned in the Universal Bill of Rights (OOC: and is the First Amendment of the US Constitution), but giving people the simple right to organize into peaceful political parties. This resolution does not promise that these political parties will win elections or rule, it simply grants them the right to exist.

Cassandra Thonberger (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Cassandra_Thonberger)
Deputy Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

To the Assembled,

Here in the Dominion of the Oldest Gods we are bound by a singular faith
and our governing is in accord with its tenants, here anyone may freely
and peacefuly assemble, so long as they are doing so in celebration of
our communal blessed religion.

Were anyone to form "political opposition groups" they would be in fact
commiting treason and heresy, and therefor be subject for the death
penalty as our laws prescribe.

Our customs and faith have lead us to a state of growth and
peace-within-our-borders that is historicly unprecedented in our nation.
Alas, we have our per cent of weak-in-spirit amid our population whose
faith is unsteady. We have institutions where they are ministered to and
cared for until their faith renews- it is this segment of unfortunates that
would suffer for this article.

The seeds if dissent that this article could sow, should it be passed,
may be the cause of the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps more.
If family members are slow to commit their spiritualy diseased kin, or
their affliction is mild enough to conceal, and they begin assembling
against the True Faith, we would be forced into considering them terrorists,
and heretics whereas currently they are veiwed as ill and in need of aid.

Please help save the lives of 1000's- vote 'no'.


His Overwhelming Visage,
The Dominion of the Oldest Gods

Having come from a state that was, before the revolution, as dogmatic as yours, perhaps I can point out a problem in your reasoning.

Firstly, this bill condems the use of violence as a force for political change. If any terrorists start building bombs in thier basements in the Most Serene Republic, the fact that they're members of the former loyalists isn't going to protect them from the Shadow-Kai National Police Force.

So, they only problem that arises is that people will be allowed to speak thier opposition, and you claim this is hurtful to the nation. Our former government believed the same, and went to great lengths to save the populace from thier herecy, and in doing so, they forgot about the nature of faith. It is a personal thing, and must be a product of choice, otherwise it is meaningless and empty.

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to believe, neither of us serve our divinities very well. However, when one believes in what they believe in, aware of other choices and possibilities, than that is true faith.

Finally, let me say that if you consider if "they begin assembling
against the True Faith, we would be forced into considering them terrorists" than perhaps you are unaware of the definition of "terrorist." These people wish to expess opinions, not kill you.

Ever since Kaichi stopped being the national religion, it has grown for now people are free to incorporate it into thier lives how they will, and find new meaning in our ancient texts.

Your style of faith, when enforced by the state, is shallow, and an insult to your deity, if you truely think your people as a whole will abandon it the second they are given a choice.

Ausserland has voted in favor of this resolution. We're dismayed that so many members of this Assembly seem unable to comprehend the difference between the right of peaceable assembly and the imposition of democracy as a form of government.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Though I would rather a stronger resolution I will vote for this.

In response to the assertions of Shadow Kai:

>Firstly, this bill condems the use of violence as a force for political change.

There is no greater force of violence against a state than sedition, be it in thought or in action; against a religion: heresy. To confuse a person unto the path of perdition is a sure a horror and abomination as taking up arms against him- moreso, I would say.

>they forgot about the nature of faith. It is a personal thing, and must be a product of choice, otherwise it is meaningless and empty.>

Not if you are believing in the right Gods.

It may not have required struggle and toil to attain the wisdoms and it that, may not rest in as firm or fertile soil, but they are far from "meaningless and empty" as you put it. As for faith being personal: in our nation we are quite public about our worship- both collectively and quite individualy.

>If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to believe, neither of us serve our divinities very well.>

-but you may very well save my soul. Perhaps not in the way most prefered by all concerned, but saved nonetheless. I would say that this would, in fact, please many dieties- ours and the false ones as well.

>when one believes in what they believe in, aware of other choices and possibilities, than that is true faith.>

That is ridiculous. Would you have us teach flatearth theory in our classrooms in order to enrich the experiance of learning that the truth is otherwise?

>"they begin assembling
against the True Faith, we would be forced into considering them terrorists" than perhaps you are unaware of the definition of "terrorist." These people wish to expess opinions, not kill you.>

Terror is not a physical state, but more one that is emotional and spiritual. I would say that those who would cloud the path to right by chattering distraction to the people are far closer to the true definition of terrorist than your afforemention bomb builder- he is simple a killer and a object of disdane.

>Your style of faith, when enforced by the state, is shallow, and an insult to your deity,>

So you've studied our ways then I take it? You honor me, but I believe you may be mistaken in the above assumption. In any event, we are not monsters, if one cannot be coaxed back into the flock or is unwilling to try they are free to leave and never return. No hand forces them to The Oldest Gods, nor will their hand force another away.

Lastly:

" if you truely think your people as a whole will abandon it the second they are given a choice."

There is no danger of that I assure you, but we are concerned for the growth and rise to glory of all our people- each and every one- not just the majority of them.


His Overwhelming Visage,
The Dominion of the Oldest Gods

We must oppose this proposal based on our belief that the UN should not impose political systems on its member nations.

We must oppose this proposal based on our belief that the UN should not impose political systems on its member nations.

I'd like to personally ask the representative from Neo Undelia to perhaps point to the text of the resolution itself where a political system is "imposed" upon member nations.

Before doing that though, consider the following FACT. Each nation in the UN is allowed to contribute meaningless points to the UN floor debates for resolutions (which this is now) and proposals (which this technically is not), before casting their vote. Ironically representatives arguing against this resolution because it is designed to promote freedom of political expression are using that very same freedom in an attempt to advocate that they shouldn't have that freedom. I honestly suspect most of these representatives fail to see the irony in their own position.

This resolution is designed as a mild resolution. The only thing is forcefully does is condemn political parties and organizations that do advocate violence. As many democractic nations have pointed out, the other clauses are much milder in tone ... something designed based on the assumption that most ambassadors would have some ability to recognize this.

Regardless, I'd like to reiterate that by ensuring that citizens have a voice, not control necessarily, but the ability to speak their mind, we can do two things:

(1) undermine that attractiveness of violence secret societies that prey upon the disenfranchised in order to sew the seeds of unrest, and

(2) bring more ideas and options to the attention of whatever political system exists.

Howie T. Katzman

[OOC: If more Saudi kids felt they had a say in their own dictatorship / monarcy, I promise you that bin Laden would have had a much more difficult time in convincing those kids to blow themselves up on the World Trade Center ... which actually should illustrate exactly why this is an international issue as well as a domestic one. Remember it was Saudis that formed a large number of the young adults involved in 9/11.]

This resolution is just taking away a nation's options. Maybe I don't want the nazi party meeting in my public square; I think I should be able to make up my own mind. I'm upset that this resolution has so much support. It's taking freedom away from the goverment and giving it to the people. And although that sounds like a good thing, I don't believe it is.

This resolution is just taking away a nation's options. Maybe I don't want the nazi party meeting in my public square; I think I should be able to make up my own mind. I'm upset that this resolution has so much support. It's taking freedom away from the goverment and giving it to the people. And although that sounds like a good thing, I don't believe it is.

Enrique Lopez strolls into the Assembly and stands at his desk.

"Would the representative from Sapphire City be kind enough to explain their reasoning?" he asks in a falsely-sweet voice.

"Stupid authoritarians," he mutters under his breath.

This resolution is just taking away a nation's options.
I could easily count all the resolutions that don't take away a nations option on one hand. If you belive nations should have full control over everything then leave the UN.
I'm upset that this resolution has so much support.
So why don't you go home and cry to your mommy.

This resolution is just taking away a nation's options. Maybe I don't want the nazi party meeting in my public square; I think I should be able to make up my own mind. I'm upset that this resolution has so much support. It's taking freedom away from the goverment and giving it to the people. And although that sounds like a good thing, I don't believe it is.

And yet YOU are free to express YOUR opinion here. I'm looking to see how this will hurt or harm the UN ... and yet, I fail to see this international organization toppling down due to your government's opinion.

I wonder, if nation's opposed to the general concept of freedom of assembly understand the hypocrisy in their position of USING a largely democratic system (the UN) to participate in a democratic vote while advocating that political opinions destablize governments. I say this, but I've yet to see a SINGLE nation point to any portion of the text of this resolution with any claim of how it can harm them. Thus far I continue to see generic and silly suggestions that sticks and stones will not break bones, but names will always hurt me.



This resolution takes away a political climate that is a breeding ground for sedition. By moving all political discussions into a public arena, governments of any system will better be able to understand where real public sentiment lies ... but when political opposition is forced to expatriate (i.e. move to another nation) then governments LOSE control and actually force their ability to govern away.

I could easily count all the resolutions that don't take away a nations option on one hand. If you belive nations should have full control over everything then leave the UN.

So why don't you go home and cry to your mommy.

Actually nations that feel that the EXPRESSION of political opinions should be controlled shouldn't cry to their mommies, but instead I'd like to invite them to talk to the UN Secretariat about dissolving the UN ... because if they have a problem with democratic organizations, I'm at a loss why they joined an organization where nations are allowed to say whatever they WANT, they all get at least one vote on resolutions, they can freely choose to endorse another nation in a political / regional bloc that can NOT be made illegal by even the UN Secretariat (i.e. mods), and if they don't agree with that Delegate, to withdrawl their support of the Delegate.

There are many forms of governance and democracies. The UN is one. It is just so ironic to listen to nations use a democratic system to advocate against democratic processes, when it is obvious they are not aware that they USING the basic right they are arguing against.

That is like advocating against airtravel while riding in a hot air balloon. Nobody is going to care or listen ... not even mommy, as she'll see straight through that.

I never thought I would offer any form of support to a Furtherment Of Democracy proposal, but here it is. Well done.

Now then, on to business. As there are already a great many voices of reason amongst those in support of this, I will endeavor to offer an alternative voice to answer some of those who are lacking in reading skills, logic, etc, and are opposing for foolish reasons. I hope that all may find this as amusing as I imagine it will be for me.

I think the key phrase here is "CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process."

The Constitutional Monarchy of Vervkaland agrees that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process. However, we are against the democratic process.

Good thing this doesn't impose the democratic process upon us, then.

That's why we have a constitutional monarchy!

We were there, once. We found that the constitution got in the way. As did the chain of succession. Dictatorship. More honest that way. One person is in charge, and there's no question as to who that is.

We have outlawed all political freedoms and do not need the UN to impose a bill telling us how our governments should be run.

Only outlawed? Many Kivistan citizens aren't even aware that the possibility of such things exist. Believe it or not, this bill won't change the fact that you're a Constitutional Monarchy. Nor will it force you to allow your nations citizenry to do anything they couldn't before. It simply codifies, more firmly and thoroughly, rights they had already been granted.

Our people like our way of governance and have good civil rights without democracy.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

We allow opposition groups to have a voice as far as policy, but we draw the line at political opposition groups.

Why? It's just a bunch of commoners. Waitaminit......You allow opposition groups for policy but draw the line at opposition groups.......uhhhhhhh

Here's a ball. Perhaps you'd like to bounce it.

Therefore, I am in fierce opposition to this UN proposal, and have registered a "no" vote, and encourage all to do so. This should be left up to the individual countries, not mandated by the UN.

Realizing that the freedom of peaceful assembly is already covered by UBR, all this does is clarifies the UN stance about such things.

[QUOTE=Risban;11754811]Statement from the Imperial Ministry for Foreign Affairs-- U.N. Mission

I always love statements that start with this kind of pomp and circumstance. I can't possibly take anyone seriously after that level of pretension.

While the Grand Imperium of Risban realizes that many nations hold these 'political freedoms' and such dear to their hearts, it does not support that certain democratic ideology being imposed upon the Grand Imperium.

Allowing your people to gather to discuss politics is democratic? I would have thought democracy would come more around the time you allow them a vote, or some kind of say in the government. Meh. What do I know. The people of Kivisto gather frequently for all kinds of reasons. The Master doesn't seem to mind at all. It's not like he's swayed overmuch by what they say.

Our people enjoy a fantastic economic life and good civil liberties, but the Grand Imperium maintains that the Imperial Government is much more apt at ruling the nation-state than the common person and will not allow them to democratically elect individuals and totally reform our government.

Good thing this doesn't mention anything about allowing the people to elect government officials and representation. Phew. Almost had a real argument in that one. Dodged a bullet.

Likewise, whilst freedom of speech and such is indeed allowed, as are rallies and such, the right to assemble and protest government actions has, in the passed, led to riots and, in the most extreme case, rebellion within the Grand Imperium of Risban.

So you allow them to assemble for rallies and allow them to speak their mind already? Where is the problem? They're already assembling and speaking up. There's going to be no significant change for you here.

As such, the Grand Imperium is very cautious about letting such opposition assemble in one place.

I'd think it preferable. You'd know where they all are. With all of them in a single location, you wouldn't have to waste precious resources trying to keep track of numerous locations.

Thus, the Grand Imperium deems this an attempt to dictate our political ideologies and votes against this resolution.

It hardly dictates your ideologies. It reaffirms the people's right to gather and speak their mind. It encourages the opening of elections and such, but doesn't dictate that you must.

This is a world, where poeple are free to run their governments as they see fit.

Correct. The poeple can run their governments for themselves.

Promoting Democracy is the downright stupidest idea yet.

No stupider than promoting any other political ideal. Granted, the promotion of democracy in this bill is simple encouragement that can be easily ignored by those that wish to do so, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

There are innumerable dictatorships, religious and corporately founded states, and states where public assembly and democracy just won't work.

Public assembly and democracy do not go hand in hand. I'm certain the religious Wenaists of Gruenberg assemble on regular occassions for any number of reasons. I know for a fact that public assemblies are encouraged in The Dominion Of Kivisto, ruled by our loving Dictator.

There are kingdoms and feudal systems, and many many other types of government where the promotion of democracy is downright harmful.

Lucky for them that this only encourages democracy. Encouragement that can be dismissed by those nations strongly opposed.

To pass this resolution is to claim your system is better than everyone else's, and thats jsut not the spirit of this world at all.

Incorrect. To pass this resolution is to claim that the people have a right to assemble and speak their mind. That is all it claims. As for the spirit of the world...

<<enters into yogic looking posture and ohhhhmmmmmmsss for a moment>>

<in raspy mocking voice>I commune with the mother spirit of the world. the spirit of the world couldn't give a rats ass whether we are dictatorships, democracies or what all, and please stop claiming that she speaks to us at all</dumb voice></yoga posture>

Trust me. She's got a lot of rat's asses to give. If she ain't giving them, she really don't care who thinks they're better.

I oppose because yet again, the U.N. likes to step on other nations.

These other nations...they would be the ones not in the UN? Or are you syaing that the UN likes to step on itself?

The resolution fails to realize is having these extremist rallys often times causes regular people to go and riot.

1) Nowhere in Freedom of Assembly does it say anything about rallies. Assemblies need not necessarily be rallies.

2) If regular people are rioting, then maybe the extremists aren't the problem.

3) The proposed legislation actively condemns acts of violence.

I do not want this to happen on my streets.

So don't let the riots happen on your street. There, that was easy.

It also fails to put into account non-democratic nations and infringes on their rights as well.

It really doesn't.

So if this is passed, my nation will oppose this legislation by refusing to abide by it. So I :sniper: this resolution.

The Gnomes will be notified of your intended non-compliance. Thanks for the heads up.

To the Assembled,

Here in the Dominion of the Oldest Gods we are bound by a singular faith
and our governing is in accord with its tenants, here anyone may freely
and peacefuly assemble,

Good start

so long as they are doing so in celebration of
our communal blessed religion.

Were anyone to form "political opposition groups" they would be in fact
commiting treason and heresy, and therefor be subject for the death
penalty as our laws prescribe.

I would like to refer you to Article 1 of the Universal Bill Of Rights, which currently resides in UN legislature and, as such, you must comply with

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Our customs and faith have lead us to a state of growth and
peace-within-our-borders that is historicly unprecedented in our nation.

Strange how those afraid of death will do what they are told. That isn't peace. Tha's oppression. Kivisto is a Dictatorship, and a slightly psychotic one, at thet. We're happy with that because we know we are safe, and we're not being lied to by our own government about anything. We may be somewhat oppressed, but there would be a revolution were The Master to try and say that it was simply a matter of peace and growth. He knows how we feel because he allows us to assemble and speak our mind.

Alas, we have our per cent of weak-in-spirit amid our population whose faith is unsteady.

Probably more like 1% whose mind and will are strong enough not to be downtrodden by dogmatic tripe backed up with death threats.

We have institutions where they are ministered to and
cared for until their faith renews-

Brainwashing camps. That's spectacular. I've lost count of the number of way in which you are in contravention of currently existing UN legislation.

it is this segment of unfortunates that
would suffer for this article.

Why? Because they'd be allowed to get together and talk about it? What are you afraid of? That these individuals that you claim are weak in faith will realize the truth of the situation and overthrow your fascist regime. Perhaps the time has come for your government to face the music.

The seeds if dissent that this article could sow, should it be passed,
may be the cause of the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps more.

It takes more than simply seeds of dissent to start a revolution. Those seeds will need a place to take root, like the cracks in your logic, and a great deal of manure, which you have already supplied them with.

If family members are slow to commit their spiritualy diseased kin, or
their affliction is mild enough to conceal, and they begin assembling
against the True Faith, we would be forced into considering them terrorists,

I never thought I would have to use this argument in this debate. Or from this side of the argument. My apologies to Cluichstan for the following statement. He will understand why.

As these would be individuals nascent, and residing, within your own nation, and the target of their "action" would be the government alone, they would more accurately be referred to as "Freedom Fighters".

and heretics

Check that UBR reference I gave ya.

whereas currently they are veiwed as ill and in need of aid.

When, in reality, even that view is discriminatory and illegal by UN standards.

Please help save the lives of 1000's- vote 'no'.

In all actuality, you're more likely to save hundreds of thousands of lives, in the long run, by allowing the people to gather, speak their peace and move on with their day. Even better, let them think for themselves. If they are performing blasphemy, they will not be saved. If the only way you can convince them to follow the path the you are narrow minded enough to believe is the right one is by threatening their lives, then they will not be following it with their hearts and they are doomed anyways. Save your breath, your resources and your ammo.

We must oppose this proposal based on our belief that the UN should not impose political systems on its member nations.

Good job that this proposal does no such thing, then, I guess.

Now then, that made for a fun first round for me. I hope that everyone enjoyed it as much as I.

In closing, Freedom Of Assembly will not suddenly and magically turn everyone into a democracy. Freedom of Assembly cannot do any such thing. Strike the notion from your minds. There is nothing to be gained by claiming that it will do anything of the sort. This proposal does not cure cancer. This proposal will not give you Herpes. This proposal cannot leap tall buildings in a single bound. This proposal grants people the right to assemble. It grants them the right to assemble with other like-minded individuals and discuss political things, even. This proposal does not force national leaders to listen to anyone any more than it did before. It does not institute elections. It does not enforce representation for the masses. It certainly will not bring you your cup of coffe in the morning. There a million and one things that this proposal will not do. If at all possible, it would be greatly appreciated if further debate could be restricted to what it actually does do.

Thank you. You've been great.

Oskar Feldstein
Kivistan Ambassador to the UN
Prancing In The Master's Flatulence

This resolution is just taking away a nation's options. Maybe I don't want the nazi party meeting in my public square; I think I should be able to make up my own mind. I'm upset that this resolution has so much support. It's taking freedom away from the goverment and giving it to the people. And although that sounds like a good thing, I don't believe it is.

So don't allow them to assemble in your town square. Nothing says that you must allow them to assemble there. They must simply be allowed to assemble.

That's why we have a constitutional monarchy! We have outlawed all political freedoms and do not need the UN to impose a bill telling us how our governments should be run.

Just to rid us of such ignorant statements. Constitutional Monarchies are based on democratic institutions. Examples of countries with constitutional monarchies are: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and Belgium. Are these countries not democratic?

Now over to the question at hand.
Should there be a freedom of assembly? The Republic of Aquilonius Gloria says that it is the foundation of all that is good that democratic values be respected. However there remains a question of wether this right should be completely unregulated. Should people be able to assemble wherever they want, and disrupt the daily lives of others? I am talking about in streets hindering traffic, in schools stopping children from attending them or on private property such as yards and shopping centres.

I have to say that this resolution is very well written and has the best of intensions and that the resolution in question gives a clear message of what is right and wrong. This means that we cannot vote against it.

There should be some room to regulate freedom, freedom without regulation is anarchy. The only thing that this resolution singles out in a regulative form is actual harm to public or private property. In Aquilonius Gloria people have equal rights to assemble and publicly convey whatever opinions they may have. On the other hand they must assemble at designated areas as not to disrupt other citizens. For example we have in downtown Contumelia, the breathtaking capital of Aquilonius Gloria, a public space called "Speaker´s Garden" where people are free to assemble and proclaim all sorts of political opinions.

Because such regulation is not fitted within the resolution, the Republic of Aquilonius Gloria must abstain on this resolution.

And last I wish to point out something strange about this resolution:
1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent
Does this mean that opinions of the revolutuonary kind be banned, such as Nazism or Communism? Or does this mean that such opinions should only be voiced through consent of someone else? who are those that give the consent and decide what opinions should be voiced and what opinins that shall remain unvoiced? the Government, Corporations, the Majority of the people? Also who decides what opinions cause harm to people or property? What does this mean?

Gunnar í Krossinum
Ambassador to the UN

So don't allow them to assemble in your town square. Nothing says that you must allow them to assemble there. They must simply be allowed to assemble.

OOC: This is a good point, and actually was exactly what was intended by this MILD proposal. When I was an undergrad at Texas A&M University in College Station Texas, the Klu Klux Klan wanted to hold a parade down one of the main streets of the mid-sized college town and pass by campus. The law in some United States communities is that if you plan on holding a LARGE public gathering that you need to contact your city, arguibly so that the city can assign police and paramedics to be on hand in case something stupid happens. Well, the Klan applied for a permit, but College Station did NOT want the Klan in town ... so word leaked out that they had applied and immediately students organized and put in an anti-hate parade permit for the same exact day and similar route. The city then decided it couldn't have TWO events on the same day, so since the Klan had a smaller list of participants, the racists were told to stay home and the students had a parade. I didn't go to the parade, but it still was held and billed as an indirect way to show the Klan that whatever they'd try and do, that they'd be out organized. Never know if they tried again or not. The point is that the Klan could do things in their homes ... they weren't illegal ... but the city honestly was not thrilled about such a hateful group coming to down.

Ultimately the quickest way to become a nazi is to act like one: i.e. ban political parties. It is one thing to really manage public safety by telling extremist groups *where* they can meet, but they still should have some opportunity to say even the dumest things, as ultimately it really does come down to "sticks and stones".

And last I wish to point out something strange about this resolution:
1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent
Does this mean that opinions of the revolutuonary kind be banned, such as Nazism or Communism? Or does this mean that such opinions should only be voiced through consent of someone else? who are those that give the consent and decide what opinions should be voiced and what opinins that shall remain unvoiced? the Government, Corporations, the Majority of the people? Also who decides what opinions cause harm to people or property? What does this mean?

Gunnar í Krossinum
Ambassador to the UN

We've established that having freedom of assembly is designed to weaken the influence of the extremist political groups.

We've checked with our Supreme Court, and What that part of the bill appears to be addressing is the right of expression in the form of destruction of property, eg, flag burning, something most nations have had to address at one point or another. On the other hand, it affirms that although a crowd of protestors are expressing an opinion by tearing down statues in the public square or spray-painting my house, they can't do that, because consent to harm that property has not been given.

We've checked with our Supreme Court, and What that part of the bill appears to be addressing is the right of expression in the form of destruction of property, eg, flag burning, something most nations have had to address at one point or another.

With all due respect, your Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about. This proposal deals with the right of people to assemble and express their opinions. Destroying stuff is a minor point.

OOC: First, I'd like to state that I've been eagerly reading the posts in this thread and this post strikes me as the most critical post yet. This is actually a good thing. Obviously a thorough analysis has been made and this is what I was hoping for! :)


There should be some room to regulate freedom, freedom without regulation is anarchy. The only thing that this resolution singles out in a regulative form is actual harm to public or private property. In Aquilonius Gloria people have equal rights to assemble and publicly convey whatever opinions they may have. On the other hand they must assemble at designated areas as not to disrupt other citizens. For example we have in downtown Contumelia, the breathtaking capital of Aquilonius Gloria, a public space called "Speaker´s Garden" where people are free to assemble and proclaim all sorts of political opinions.

Because such regulation is not fitted within the resolution, the Republic of Aquilonius Gloria must abstain on this resolution.

And last I wish to point out something strange about this resolution:
1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent
Does this mean that opinions of the revolutuonary kind be banned, such as Nazism or Communism? Or does this mean that such opinions should only be voiced through consent of someone else? who are those that give the consent and decide what opinions should be voiced and what opinins that shall remain unvoiced? the Government, Corporations, the Majority of the people? Also who decides what opinions cause harm to people or property? What does this mean?

Gunnar í Krossinum
Ambassador to the UN

First I'd like the record to state that my government is pleased to see the thorough analysis that Ambassador Krossinum has presented us. Naturally one can not advocate FOR freedom of assembly and political expression without welcoming viewpoints that (even when abstentions) challenge the notions of a motion, but I would like the opportunity to perhaps convince the people of Aquilonius Gloria to change their vote to being in favour! :)

I believe there are really two questions that I should focus on, but if there are others, please let's continue with our public discussion, as the point of this resolution is to encourage public and free political expression.

The first point raised by Ambassador Krossinum is about the level of regulation that governments may use to regulate freedom of assembly. This resolution does not specifically endorse one method of regulation or deregulation over another. The purpose of this resolution was to really reaffirm that the basic concept of political organization, even of silly opposition parties, is essential to not democracies, but rather to all forms of government. Through franchisement or simply freedom of expression, a degree of unrest is reduced and governments become more stable.

My government is a confederation of cantons, each with slightly different local laws. In general we've felt that the best solutions to domestic problems come from domestic sources, so when putting together this resolution we specifically did not want to grant or restrict local regulations on how people can assemble. In general it is my sincere hope that political parties can always meet in private locations, but with the inclusion of the word "equal" in the first activating clause, I was in fact hinting that parties should not be discriminated against solely based upon their political message / opinions. However, if a political ralley would cause massive traffic congestion or riots, then obviously public safety needs to be considered. Simply put, I'm not qualified to tell you how best to run your nations in great detail, but I do feel that as a member state of the UN that we do have the obligation to put forth resolutions that bring about greater stability -- in this case nudging nations to consider the right to assemble as a key to stability and good governance.

On your second point concering private property, I was not attempting to single out political groups such as the Nazis or Communists, but rather to point out again that any group (say the Klu Klux Klan) that advocates direct violence against others or their property should be considered reactionary and unstable ... and that governments are always responsible to protecting all their citizens, so if a political group wanted to form solely to harm others, then governments need to find the means to protect that group. The key difference here is it is possible to be an extremist group that advocates the socialization of all private property (say a Communist group or even a National Socialist group), and to do so without advocating that there should be violent actions taken against other groups .... but I think most of us would agree that a line is crossed when the advocacy turns from taking a comprehensive or collective action into a policy of hatred / implied superiority.

I think another way to perhaps best address the ambassador's question is via example. Let's say there there is a part called the, "Let's Leave NationStates Behind Party (LLSBS)", who's platform is that your nation should devote its long-term policies towards building a space program and leaving NationStates. This party is so extreme in its beliefs that it open advocates that the best form of government to accomplish this mission should be composed of astronauts and scientists. I'd say that this resolution would grant such a party the right to form, meet, and even express their platform ... even if they are really saying only scientists and astronauts should rule. They aren't actually saying "Let's kill everybody" nor are they advocating harmful actions, but instead they have (an admittedly far-fetched) plan that calls for extreme change.

The key clause in this resolution actually is:

4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

Ultimately I believe we are saying it is OK to be unrealistic ... we'll know nutters from sane people, but that the minute a nutter begins to endanger others, that governments STLL are responsible to protecting their citizens.

I'm hoping this might be enough to convince you to change your vote to being in favour, but if not, I would like to reiterate that I thank you for your kind and thorough words. I clearly understand and respect your position and feel that pass or fail that the point of this resolution has already been met -- namely both our governments have called attention to the importance of the right of assembly and no doubt both our governments have once again strengthed their resolves to give citizens a voice.

Danke,
Howie T. Katzman

"That's why we have a constitutional monarchy! We have outlawed all political freedoms and do not need the UN to impose a bill telling us how our governments should be run. Our people like our way of governance and have good civil rights without democracy. We allow opposition groups to have a voice as far as policy, but we draw the line at political opposition groups"-Vervkaland

Governments, of course, are practically there to govern the people in a way in which the people approve of correct me if I'm wrong. You state that you allow opposition groups, but don't approve POLITICAL OPPOSITION groups. So, for those who do not like the way their country is being run, they cerainly don't like the political "governance" of their country, therefore you are not being successful in being a true government.

In a democracy, at least the government gives the people a chance to decide who runs the country, supporting a majority of that persons' views. But in a constitutional monarchy, you are basically saying that "this is the way we are going to run this country, and if you like, you'll love it, and if you don't too bad. That pretty much sounds to me as a gateway to dictatorship. :eek:

That's an interesting story about the parading racists.

Now about the resolution, I only have two problems with it, and they are minor (better than most resolutions).

1) "CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process, "

This is a problem because it has become a debate. This has nothing to do with what you are proposing, which is the freedom to assemble and promote political ideas, so why did you put it in?

2) "1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent, "

You did not define "harm", and so I could say that when the racist parading group wants to share it's ideas, they are mentally and socially harming all those they are racist against. I'm sure this isn't the definition you wanted to apply. I'm sur eyou meant physically, and I agree with you, because when people say they are against homosexuality, they hurt me in the way I described above, but I must let them share their views. Same position should apply to all minorities.

Despite this, I will support.

I'm hoping this might be enough to convince you to change your vote to being in favour, ...It's enough for us.

We have concluded that this is ultimately an excellent resolution that infringes on sovereignty very little, and which promotes a basic freedom of assembly while allowing governments leeway to protect their citizenry against those who would promote violence. Our concerns about this resolution have been addressed to our satisfaction.

The Federal Republic votes aye.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

With all due respect, your Supreme Court doesn't know what it's talking about. This proposal deals with the right of people to assemble and express their opinions. Destroying stuff is a minor point.

I'd like to add to Ceorana points, that this proposal says NOTHING about the destruction of your own things. For example, I purchase 100 Miervatian flags, I ship them to Aslan canton, I hold a protest against Miervatia City in Aslan ... we burn the Miervatian flags .... since we own those flags, who really cares? The point behind this resolution is exactly what Ceorana said it is ... it would give me the right to hand SOMETHING I own to people who CHOOSE to assemble with me and ralley around some point.

That said, if while gathered in Mezoic, Aslan we begin to say, "Kill all goofballs! Murder them all! DEATH TO GOOFBALLS!" then we've crossed a line. Whatever party is burning the flags is also know really trying to organize not for the sake of seeing their vision or ideal government take form, but for their ideal to take form at the *direct* expense and exclusion of goofballs.

There is admittedly a shade of grey in making that judgement call. And this resolution uses loose language in order to allow governments the rights they currently have in making those judgement calls remain unchanged.

If this resolution fails, you still have the rights you had yesterday. If this resolution passes this resolution just says that the UN itself condemns political parties that are based on violence and hate and it also nudges nations to allow the harmless nutters to just do their thing. The reasons WHY the supports feel this is necessary are explained above, though I'd be happy to repeat those reasons.

As is common for the UN debates, this resolution does not cure CANCER. In fact, there are a great many things it doesn't do. It wasn't designed to do much, which is why your legislative package will most likely include a Secretariat summary considering this resolution to be "mild". But if 100 fewer kids are recruited into terrorist organizations because they feel as though they have a stronger voice in their government, I honestly feel that this resolution is worth 100 days worth of debate. Ultimately having an international statement supporting this right sends a signal to the rest of the world that UN members have open and rational governments (not necessarily democracies ... just governments that care about their citizens), and that does bring regional stability (which in turn brings economic prosperity).

To conclude, Mikitivity has not always been a peaceful nation. For centuries Thuvian cities fought amongst each other for power and control. And the lack of political freedoms only fueled these conflicts, as I pointed out in my story about the Aslan Faction. It was when systems were put in place to give a voice to groups that the violence really stablized ... and rebuilding our flood control projects was expensive, so when we stopped having to do that, the Confederation began to really thrive. I think the UN too can benefit (if only to a small degree, it will still be worth it).

Howie T. Katzman

I think this resolution is oppressing the rights of the government. Dictators should have the right to assemble.

"Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology"

This proposel is limiting the power of a dictatorship theirfore in my opinion against the rules slightly. This resolution is un-democratic and I hope it is defeated fo the good of the world.

Dear Mikitivity.
At present it will take far too long to comment on everything in your reply, but I will try to answer some of your points now and some later.

"1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent"
I understand what you mean by this now. On the other hand I wish you would express this part in another way, because it´s not the opinions in itself that harm people, people harm people.

"4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,"
If this is the key clause I truly doubt your intensions, based on the fact that you are actually proposing a regulation on what opinions should be allowed. Such legislation gives governments oppertunity to let it self be misused to cripple opposition.
Yes it is quite bad that some would encourage violence, but I would like you to join me on a little hypothetical expedition. Let us say that the government suddenly would deside to "Resolve the Jewish Question" would it not be every citizens duty to revolt against such action? As a famous american put it "Each man must be prepared to defend his country against it´s government".
Of course we are not the revolutionary kind yet we have a duty to protect what is right do we not? And if such action is to be taken, that is violence to reintroduce civil and political liberties, would not other political movements have the right to voice revolution through violence?

I am not advocating revolution or violence, but these are important questions, and the Republic of Aquilonius Gloria firmly believes that the freedom of speech is absolute. Imagine being out on the town having fun and some foul mouthed hooligan spills your beer, should you be jailed for saying that men such as him should be shot? Or should actual acts of violence be punished?

The government of Aquilonius Gloria is bound by the ideals of Edmund Burke the founder of conservatism. He lived and breathed for freedom, but a regulated one. When I talk of regulated freedom it is mostly that things should be happen through propper order. However every opinion is allowed to be voiced as long as it happens within the confines of the "Speaker´s Garden". Even nazism, communism, islamism and many more are allowed to be voiced. Such idiotic opinions as many posses will best be fought in open air for everyone to see, not behind closed doors.

Gunnar í Krossinum
Ambasador to the UN

P.S.
Your pleasant compliments are recieved with gratitude.

I think this resolution is oppressing the rights of the government. Dictators should have the right to assemble.

"Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology"

This proposel is limiting the power of a dictatorship theirfore in my opinion against the rules slightly. This resolution is un-democratic and I hope it is defeated fo the good of the world.

..... What?

I think this resolution is oppressing the rights of the government.
How?

Dictators should have the right to assemble.
Maybe someone should make a Resolution about the right to assemble then.











OH WAIT

"Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology"

I suppose you're paraphrasing your version of this Resolution.

I suggest you reread it, and then point out where it says you can't ban things.

I suggest you also read the UBR. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)

This proposel is limiting the power of a dictatorship theirfore in my opinion against the rules slightly.
How? It doesn't break the ideological ban, which is what I suppose you're saying it does.

And again, how? Where is the power of a dictatorship limited? Kivisto and OMGTKK are both dictatorships, and both are voting for this. And I highly doubt that neither members would ever vote for anything that would limit their power as a dictatorship. And that is simply because this Resolution does no such thing. When you can point me to the clause that says "Dictatorships must become democracies" then maybe I'll reconsider. And then I'll show you the UBR. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27) again.

This resolution is un-democratic and I hope it is defeated fo the good of the world.
What I find remarkably ironic about this is that you're doing here exactly what your oppressed people would be doing.

Which now leads me to think that you're just mocking the opposition satirically. In which case... You need to be more clearly satirical.

Kivisto and OMGTKK are both dictatorships
Um, actually OMGTKK is a Corporate Bordello with superb political freedoms. Otherwise all of your comments to The Holy Ekaj Monarchy are correct. Carry on.

Ardchoille might take issue with that, but it's essentially correct. In the Federal Republic we subscribe to the basic mantra, "A free citizen makes a happy shopper." Our corporate sponsors like it that way.

Voted Yes.

We of Suon believe that the freedom of expression of ideas leads to the greater intellectual wealth of our nation. And this is our goal. :D

Um, actually OMGTKK is a Corporate Bordello with superb political freedoms. Otherwise all of your comments to The Holy Ekaj Monarchy are correct. Carry on.

This is true...

Gruen?

My point is... Gilbert Gottfried has no testicles.

I'd like to personally ask the representative from Neo Undelia to perhaps point to the text of the resolution itself where a political system is "imposed" upon member nations.
It implies that the stupid should have a say in political matters.
Before doing that though, consider the following FACT. Each nation in the UN is allowed to contribute meaningless points to the UN floor debates for resolutions (which this is now) and proposals (which this technically is not), before casting their vote. Ironically representatives arguing against this resolution because it is designed to promote freedom of political expression are using that very same freedom in an attempt to advocate that they shouldn't have that freedom. I honestly suspect most of these representatives fail to see the irony in their own position.
I assume that most voting on this resolution are of reasonable intelligence and have what they believe to be the greater good in mind. The same can not be said for the mobs.

It implies that the stupid should have a say in political matters.I would just like to point out that nowhere in this Resolution does it give the Masses any political Power whatsoever.

It states that the People are allowed to freely speak their Minds to the other People, in an Assembly. It does not say that these Assemblies are required to be a part of the Government; nor does it say that the Government has to pay any Attention whatsoever to the Subject of these Assemblies.

Your Government will retain the ability to Completely Ignore the concerns voiced by its People in its actions.

Lady Sara
Speaker for the Commonwealth of Eirisle.

OOC: Neo Undelia in the UN forum? OMG!1 :p

IC:

I assume that most voting on this resolution are of reasonable intelligence and have what they believe to be the greater good in mind.

Sweet Supercarious. You must have missed such remarkably stupid resolutions as "World Heritage List", "Rights of Minorities and Women", "Promotion of Solar Panels" and "Help Prevent Ozone Depletion" (along with countless other bullshit resolutions that weren't quite as damaging) if you think that the majority of UN members are of reasonable intelligence.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

My point is... Gilbert Gottfried has no testicles.Have you seen his face? Heard his voice? Clearly, he not only has testicles, but they're being pinched by bunched up underwear.

Have you seen his face? Heard his voice? Clearly, he not only has testicles, but they're being pinched by bunched up underwear.

TMGH wins the thread.

Dear Mikitivity.
At present it will take far too long to comment on everything in your reply, but I will try to answer some of your points now and some later.

"1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent"

I understand what you mean by this now. On the other hand I wish you would express this part in another way, because it´s not the opinions in itself that harm people, people harm people.

P.S.
Your pleasant compliments are recieved with gratitude.

OOC:
As I said before ... there are some players whom I'm not really going to waste time in responding to, because honestly they don't realize their own hypocrisy in advocating against something they are in the act of doing. Which means I'm more than happy to spend more time on the comments, like yours, that really are exploring the issue.

However, I wanted to first talk about a RL issue. A few years ago an Islamic cleric (whos name I couldn't begin to pronounce let alone spell) was openly preaching in the Netherlands that not only did "God demand that homosexuals be killed", but that it was up to men to take matters into their own hands and kill any homosexual. The Dutch government, which as a well deserved international reputation for being extremely open minded and liberal, arrested the cleric. While he wasn't trying to organize a traditional political party, he was using Islam as a shield to encourage people to actually commit crimes.

I really wanted that clause to be somewhat vague, but also be broad enough that nut jobs like that Islamic cleric could be cast in with the lot he is. He really isn't that different from the Nazis (which is probably another reason why the Dutch locked him up for a while) or any other hate monger.

IC:
Ambassador Krossinum,

I'll completely agree with your statement that it is not opinions that harm, but rather people. However, at some point advocating actual harm is considered conspiracy to commit the act ... and in most societies doing harm is illegal, so when creating the resolution my office felt it necessary to remind us all that assembly is about organization and planning something, but when done for political change should be done peacefully. Doing harm is not peaceful, and not something any nation wishes to promote.

Ironically the nations that appear to be voting against this resolution fail to see that the text actually is not going to hand a carte blanche to any group wishing to promote violence or harm. This point is again reinforced in activating clause 4, which is why I stress that it is important.

Ultimately I really suspect that our governments share very similar opinions on this overall subject. I'd consider it a mark of good communication on my part if there was some way that I could persuade your government that this resolution is worthy of your support -- in part because I do think we see eye to eye on this issue, and in part because I think other nations that are voting against will recognize the care your government has given to this issue and may change their votes as well.

Howie T. Katzman

TMGH wins the thread.

Seconded. (Though I'm only saying that because if challenged, Cluich will post an image illustrating Hack's point and I do NOT want to see that.)

here are the ideeas that i stated in my initial argument (and i still stand by them):

i belive in strong freedom of speech. i also belive that people can make their decisions and are not sheep. there are 2 problems with "opinions result in harm" ideea:

1) if someone tells me to kill someone i'll never do that just because they tell me. so i think that you can't link a proposal to a antion in this way, making the person that does the proposal responsable for another person's action (as long as they are all free individuals ). so i'm against this part.
2)even if the person doing the proposal is responsable for the action, sometimes the action is good : someone that advocates a revolution against a evil dictatorship and it happens and the evil dictator gets killed.

"CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence," :same problem as before, people should be allowed to say "kill the president" and not be prosecuted (as long as they don't force someone to do it). but if someone kills the president only the killer is responsable (if he wasn't forced to do it).

In my previous post also i was stating that because this resolution is "mild" i would vote "FOR", but in the mean time i've changed my mind. i've realised that if there is no resolution, nation law's apply, so my citizens get full freeddom of speach (even if the citizens of other countrys get less. i know it's selfish but i must take care of my people first, and then worry about the rest of the world). So i vote "NO". because i'm selfish

but this a resolution that would be great for people in other nations (many people are not as free as my people) so if anyone is NOT as selfish as i am should vote "FOR"

Mikitivity
I think we agree on this matter. However I was trying to explore the extent of the resolution.
Of course it should be illegal to promote violence and other illegal acts, for they are considderred conspiracy to commit crimes. But in the resolution this is not clear.

CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence
You must see that this is a thin line you´re walking, because who defines what is terror or actual harm? Is it psycological harm or actual physical harm? As I have said before there is a possibility for governments to misuse the definition in order to stamp out political opposition. Wich we feel is not a good thing. In other words we feel that you do not go far enough when including free speech.

Gunnar í Krossinum
Ambassador to the UN

I should probably start another thread where it´s possible to talk about the right to revolt against your government given certain circumsances...

To the Assembled,

Here in the Dominion of the Oldest Gods we are bound by a singular faith
and our governing is in accord with its tenants, here anyone may freely
and peacefuly assemble, so long as they are doing so in celebration of
our communal blessed religion.

Were anyone to form "political opposition groups" they would be in fact
commiting treason and heresy, and therefor be subject for the death
penalty as our laws prescribe.

Our customs and faith have lead us to a state of growth and
peace-within-our-borders that is historicly unprecedented in our nation.
Alas, we have our per cent of weak-in-spirit amid our population whose
faith is unsteady. We have institutions where they are ministered to and
cared for until their faith renews- it is this segment of unfortunates that
would suffer for this article.

The seeds if dissent that this article could sow, should it be passed,
may be the cause of the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps more.
If family members are slow to commit their spiritualy diseased kin, or
their affliction is mild enough to conceal, and they begin assembling
against the True Faith, we would be forced into considering them terrorists,
and heretics whereas currently they are veiwed as ill and in need of aid.

Please help save the lives of 1000's- vote 'no'.


His Overwhelming Visage,
The Dominion of the Oldest Gods
I believe you are in violation of resolution 'Freedom of Conscience', among many others.

Security!

Benedictions,

Seconded. (Though I'm only saying that because if challenged, Cluich will post an image illustrating Hack's point and I do NOT want to see that.)

Come now...you know you want me to... :p

It's enough for us.

We have concluded that this is ultimately an excellent resolution that infringes on sovereignty very little, and which promotes a basic freedom of assembly while allowing governments leeway to protect their citizenry against those who would promote violence. Our concerns about this resolution have been addressed to our satisfaction.

The Federal Republic votes aye.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

We must disagree with our friend from the Federal Republic. This proposal doesn't allow governments enough leeway to protect their citizenry from those who would promote and/or commit violence. Although we respect the fine efforts of our Mikitivian friends, we must oppose this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I'm voting "No (UN member)" in the poll, even though Cluichstan is not officially a member. Cluichstani UN Mission is a member, however, and I roleplay it as though it were simply an extension of Cluichstan. In reality, Cluichstani UN Mission only exists cuz I was stupid enough to violate the three-strikes rule of submitting joke proposals with Cluichstan (seems I'd forgotten I'd submitted a joke proposal or two before I submitted the Protection of Midgets Act).

IC:
The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia votes against this proposal.

However as current voting is at 3:1 "for" the proposal, several crack battalions of the Excruciatian Policarmy shall be set aside to defend the Excruciatian people from subversive elements at any gathering. Such elements shall be quickly deported to non-UN nations with close ties to Excruciatia where the UBR does not exist.

BPL, DRE


OOC:
An insane enough dictator will always find a way :sniper: :D

Mikitivity RE: I'm at a loss why they joined an organization where nations are allowed to say whatever they WANT...Because UN is only chance of repelling region invasions. If it wasn't for regional trouble there is no way I'ld go anywhere near the UN with any of my regions. It's too sane for my insane regions, and WAY too insane for my sane ones :)

Maybe next major NS upgrade will separate UN & regional war activities...

Pete

Mikitivity RE: I'm at a loss why they joined an organization where nations are allowed to say whatever they WANT...Because UN is only chance of repelling region invasions. If it wasn't for regional trouble there is no way I'ld go anywhere near the UN with any of my regions. It's too sane for my insane regions, and WAY too insane for my sane ones :)

OOC: Why don't you have puppets in the UN to defend your region, or have the regional founder do it?

OOC: Why don't you have puppets in the UN to defend your region, or have the regional founder do it?

OOC:
No founder in region and this is my oldest "insane" nation, so bit more of a chance with it :) Set up a puppet to act as founder of another region just in case things don't work. Fun trying either way ;)

We must disagree with our friend from the Federal Republic. This proposal doesn't allow governments enough leeway to protect their citizenry from those who would promote and/or commit violence. Although we respect the fine efforts of our Mikitivian friends, we must oppose this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UNWould the *snort!* honorable gentleman from Cluichstan care to back up his assertions with examples from the text? We find the first clause sufficiently elastic to allow governments to suppress speech that promotes violence, vandalism or illegal activities. And the author has repeatedly stated as much.

My nation is governed by morals and by the will of Oebr, the One God. We have no need of democracy or anything remotely resembling it. I, the Prime of Dachrea and the pontiff for the entire Drasilian Orthodoxy, am fully capable of running my own nation, and I don't need my people directly included, other than informing me of their troubles and opinions so that I may take proper measures.

Therefore my vote is a 'no', although, as before, I will not argue with the ultimate decision, no matter what it may be.

Signed,
Luseik Kusefora,
Prime of the Holy Empire of Dachrea

We must disagree with our friend from the Federal Republic. This proposal doesn't allow governments enough leeway to protect their citizenry from those who would promote and/or commit violence. Although we respect the fine efforts of our Mikitivian friends, we must oppose this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN



We disagree. The exclusion in Clause 1 allows us perfectly ample leeway to protect the wellbeing of our citizens. If we had any concern whatever that this was not the case, we would vote against the resolution. We do not, and have voted for it.

Petrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic supports this proposed resolution and has instructed its ambassador to vote FOR it. In our opinion the right to have a say about how one's nation is governed is one of the most important rights that sapient beings can possess, second only to freedom from arbitrary killing and -- perhaps -- freedom from slavery, and significantly more important than many of the assorted 'Human Rights' that have already been brought before this Assembly on the grounds that they are "fundamental".
We hope -- although, admittedly, without much optimism -- that the passage of this resolution, making it easier for people to voice their individual & collective opinions about how their nations are governed, will not only promote increased democracy in those UN members that currently have non-democratic systems of government but also make the General Assembly more willing to leave legislation on topics that don't really have 'international' effects to the member-nations' own governments (now that those may, hopefully, be becoming at least a bit more representative) instead of trying to impose a single "one size fits all" set of policies on every nation regardless of how democratic its current system of government might be and how much public opinion within some nations might be against those policies.


(This will probably be the last occasion on which our ambassador votes as a Regional Delegate, because we've just lost the latest election for that post...)

(LOOKS AT THE POLL NUMBERS) - (LOOKS AT THE VOTE NUMBERS)

I can't recall a time when the poll and the vote were so closely in agreement. The members and deligates have spoken! I love the democatic process. (As long as it goes my way that is.)

Tzorsland votes YES and encourages all members to vote likewise. I'm sure my prime minister, who handles all the daily issues would be rather annoyed at my vote, (he tends to turn his opposition into 6" tall figurines) but I find the whole notion of trying to keep people from assembling a horrid waste of time, as moronic as monitoring the internet.

If you don't want people promoting violence make promting violence an offense. If you simply ban peaceful assembly, you will wind up only arresting the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Wool Knitting and Fancy Embrodery (SPEWKFE) and you might have a bunch of eldery ladies with knitting needles taking over your government.

Remember when two or three are gathered togther, you only need one easedropping unit to monitor them all.

Mikitivity RE: I'm at a loss why they joined an organization where nations are allowed to say whatever they WANT...Because UN is only chance of repelling region invasions. If it wasn't for regional trouble there is no way I'ld go anywhere near the UN with any of my regions. It's too sane for my insane regions, and WAY too insane for my sane ones :)

Maybe next major NS upgrade will separate UN & regional war activities...

Pete

OOC: I'm primarily in the UN for similar reason, except it's more offensive than defensive. For me the question is why am I posting here with a raider nation that will probably leave the UN soon. The answer is, because I like to post with my current UN nation, and post with its POV.

IC: The OP raised a good point that his proposal doesn't directly outlaw non-democratic governments. However, there is a lot of hostility towards the Sirat government, and towards the priests who have a large role in the government. If we allowed freedom of assembly, there would be violence & chaos, therefore we vote NO.

This is just like the last resolution to pass.

Zero actionable language.

"Shoulds" and "encourages" mean Kimaze, along with many other nations, will just deny the resolution as it stands.

The only POSSIBLE actionable language is the first bullet:

"1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,"

depending on your definition of reaffirm, and it provides NO protection of assembly. It is far more accurately freedom of speech (freedom of expression).

The UN needs to stop bringing to vote inactionable proposals.

I seem to recall they have to affect everyone or they are not legal proposals. I wonder why we've had two in a row.

The proposal being shot by government assassins:
:eek: :sniper:

Intangelon and Greater Seattle vote FOR.

Governments who cannot stand the test of allowable dissent do not deserve their power. Governments who refuse the collective will of the governed to the point where the governed are prohibited from expressing their basic, non-violent displeasure do not deserve their power. Governments retaining power shall be those which acknowledge their mistakes -- along with their triumphs -- and seek to make amends for them in a timely and appropriate manner. If that government cannot be expected to do this, they cannot be expected to retain power.

Even a dictator must realize that he cannot suppress opposition and long survive -- none have. Some have managed a generation or two, but lasting power means adaptability, and that means hearing form all sides, even if only to ignore what they say.

This resolution does NOT mandate democracy. It simply states that those who feel that they are being unjustly governed have the right to say so in public -- no more, no less. What the populace of the several nations DO with what is said is another matter, and not the subject of this resolution.

RTDR.

Jubal Harshaw
Magister of the Iconoclastic Swingdicate of Intangelon
Speaker for Greater Seattle

Benjamin Royce
UN Ambassador

I am embarrassed for the dictators who have come out opposed to this resolution.

If you were true dictators, you would allow for peaceful assembly of the opposition. What better way to get the list of those opposed to your governments than to put them all in a public place, take their pictures and arrest them at your own convenience?

FH

OOC:
Big Broth....er....I mean.... ( ;) )


IC:
The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia disagrees with Intangelon.

Governments who allow dissent do not have power.

Governments who acknowledge in any way "the collective will of the governed" or allow any expression of displeasure do not have power.

"Governments retaining power shall be those" who have a Ministry of Truth to adjust any ungood reports, and a Ministry of Love to heal any of the people who are sick.....


OOC:

.....rant continues for hours, basically O'Brien's dialogue from Part III of Orwell's 1984 ;)

Pete

I would just like to point out that nowhere in this Resolution does it give the Masses any political Power whatsoever.

It states that the People are allowed to freely speak their Minds to the other People, in an Assembly. It does not say that these Assemblies are required to be a part of the Government; nor does it say that the Government has to pay any Attention whatsoever to the Subject of these Assemblies.

Your Government will retain the ability to Completely Ignore the concerns voiced by its People in its actions.

Lady Sara
Speaker for the Commonwealth of Eirisle.
You know what, you have a point. After careful deliberation, The Utilitarian Technocracy of Neo Undelia is withdrawing its vote against the resolution and will abstain.
Sweet Supercarious. You must have missed such remarkably stupid resolutions as "World Heritage List", "Rights of Minorities and Women", "Promotion of Solar Panels" and "Help Prevent Ozone Depletion" (along with countless other bullshit resolutions that weren't quite as damaging) if you think that the majority of UN members are of reasonable intelligence.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce
You aren’t kidding.

My nation is governed by morals and by the will of Oebr, the One God. We have no need of democracy or anything remotely resembling it.

Rather handy that this won't force any democracy upon you then.

I, the Prime of Dachrea and the pontiff for the entire Drasilian Orthodoxy, am fully capable of running my own nation, and I don't need my people directly included, other than informing me of their troubles and opinions so that I may take proper measures.

Groovy. Freedom of Assembly will allow your people to gather together to figure out what troubles and opinions are worth bringing to your attention.

Therefore my vote is a 'no',

uhhhhhhhhhhh........why?

This is just like the last resolution to pass.

....?.....errrr....This is about diddling dead things?......uhhhh.....what?

Zero actionable language.

Oh. I get it. You can't read. Now it makes sense. Let's try these words: REAFFIRMS, ASSERTS, CONFIRMS, and CONDEMNS. Those seem actionable enough for me, aspecially for a mild proposal.

"Shoulds" and "encourages" mean Kimaze, along with many other nations, will just deny the resolution as it stands.

The only should that I find, at a quick look, is in the middle of a clause expanding upon a right already guaranteed by UBR.

The only POSSIBLE actionable language is the first bullet:

"1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,"

Okay, I'm sorry. Apparently you can read. ADD must have kicked in before you got to the rest, I guess.

depending on your definition of reaffirm, and it provides NO protection of assembly. It is far more accurately freedom of speech (freedom of expression).

Reaffirm: To affirm again. There's not a whole lot of alternate meaning to that. In case you missed it, the implication is that what is being reaffirmed has already been affirmed at least once. Which it has. By the UN. In UBR. Look it up.

The UN needs to stop bringing to vote inactionable proposals.

Members need to learn how to read. Nay. I go further. The UN needs to stop admitting idiots into its ranks.

I seem to recall they have to affect everyone or they are not legal proposals. I wonder why we've had two in a row.

Both Outlaw Necrophilia and Freedom Of Assembly affect every single member of the United Nations. It is simply not our concern if you fail to comprehend how.

The proposal being shot by government assassins:
:eek: :sniper:

Anyone else curious about whether or not this proposal was given due consideration by this ambassador.

I am embarrassed for the dictators who have come out opposed to this resolution.

If you were true dictators, you would allow for peaceful assembly of the opposition. What better way to get the list of those opposed to your governments than to put them all in a public place, take their pictures and arrest them at your own convenience?

FH

There's the ticket. Thank you. It is good to be understood every now and then.

I would have expected a more mature attitude in the UN. Ad Hominem fallacies are quite childish.

I would like to remind the Ambassador of Kivisto of his duties to represent his nation:
"Civility: UN posters are presumed to be ambassadorial representatives from their nations to the UN. There is a higher expectation of decorum and politeness. Player attacks are not tolerated, whether uncouth language is part of the mix or not."

In any case, just like the last, Kimaze will pass appropriate laws in negation. As the resolution clearly states "Should," it clearly doesn't apply. ((Basically because I, as the supreme ruler, say so))

Further 'harm' is not defined. So I will happily follow through with:

"1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent, "

Becomes:

"1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to the government or ruling class (Public and private, respectively), defining harm as speaking out against, in contradiction to, and/or without permission of the supreme ruler."


Sure, go ahead and support it. I'd still like to see some proposals with actual substance.

Sure, go ahead and support it. I'd still like to see some proposals with actual substance.

Karmicaria has supported this resolution and if you think you can write better proposals with "actual substance", feel free to write one up.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

However, there is a lot of hostility towards the Sirat government, and towards the priests who have a large role in the government. If we allowed freedom of assembly, there would be violence & chaos, therefore we vote NO.

My comment about the irony of governments opposed to democractic processes participating in one is still unanswered. The UN *is* a democratic organization. There is no ruling class, and all nations have the same equal rights regardless of age. I've yet to hear a government decrying this resolution's category be able to explain their hypocrisy ... if your people don't like democratic institutions, why exactly are you in one? I am convinced that these governments haven't addressed that comment, because they know they can't.

[OOC: I do not feel that game mechanics OOC responses are acceptible for nations that are RPing ... I'd rather see a RP response to a RP question. I honestly do understand that the reason people aren't providing RP responses is they honestly do realize the real hypocrisy in their positions are are unable to do so ... which I think should really challenge a player to rethink the way they vote and treat their UN puppets.]

As for the misconception that freedom of assembly will increase violence and chaos, not so ... the resolution was purposefully designed with an entire clause that condemns groups that promote violence. It will not REMOTELY have the impact as suggested by the ... what are you a President-For-Life, Ambassador-FOREVER, or something from where ever. It is just nonesense to ignore the resolution and claim otherwise.

You see, I can choose to ignore the silly rambling of nations that contradict themselves by openly advocating against democracy while participating in a democracy. It is silly and harmless. Oh it might sway a vote for or even against, but it is a political opinion ... not an actual action.

And that is the strength of this resolution. It affirms that people have the right to organize (assemble) in order to pursue harmless political activity. Me calling an ill-formed opinion ill-formed doesn't harm anyone. And a group of citizens wishing to propose a harmless opinion is not going to cause death and destruction as well. In the event a political group is openly committing existing crimes or even actively planning actual actions, clause 4 sweeps in to stop that. The major complaint presented in this debate has been addressed in the resolution.

What will happen to nations that choose to outlaw political groups, is that they will simply find sympathizers in *other* nations where totalitarian regimes have little influence and openly plot against your nations there. [OOC: The Hezbollah is one example ... the terrorist organization is very well funded and supplied by Syria and Israel can't do a thing.] Ironically nations that are worried about controlling fringe groups do themselves more harm by forcing groups to ex-patriate.

Howie T. Katzman

Now about the resolution, I only have two problems with it, and they are minor (better than most resolutions).

1) "CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to the democratic process, "

This is a problem because it has become a debate. This has nothing to do with what you are proposing, which is the freedom to assemble and promote political ideas, so why did you put it in?


Actually I've not ignored the thoughtful comment from the Centauri A delegation. And I too am a bit surprised. My associate, Cassandra Thonberger, has been visiting regional forums where the discussion is not on the resolution (certainly not on freedom of assembly), but rather on a popular notion that this resolution MANDATES elections.

I was at a loss to see where ambassadors might get this impression. Afterall, nobody would be as foolish as to suggest that this resolution CURES CANCER, so why do they insist that this resolution says, "REQUIRES dictators to hold fair and free elections". It doesn't, but the subject has come up (paraphrased for emphasis on the silliness of the point) even here in the UN debates.

But in retrospect, if I could change one clause, it would be this preambulatory clause. The UN is a democratic organization. That is a FACT. Any government that participates in the UN is actively endorsing democratic processes of governance. That too is a FACT (because bilateral agreements could be reached for any UN matter ... something non-UN members are well aware of). Also there is a history of non-UN members participating in the UN debates ... they don't vote, but they still wield influence on UN matters, and my government has supported the rights of observer states (especially in light of the fact that Mikitivity is an observer in other international organizations).

But given the lack of reading comprehension some UN member's representatives have, in retrospect I'd change the above clause to read:

"1) CONVINCED that the expression of different political opinions is crucial to stable political systems,"

The reason I state that, a monarchy is a stable government ... so long as its citizens feel their needs are being addressed. And the best way for the monarchy to understand what those needs might be is for all of its citizens to express their needs.




2) "1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent, "

You did not define "harm", and so I could say that when the racist parading group wants to share it's ideas, they are mentally and socially harming all those they are racist against. I'm sure this isn't the definition you wanted to apply. I'm sur eyou meant physically, and I agree with you, because when people say they are against homosexuality, they hurt me in the way I described above, but I must let them share their views. Same position should apply to all minorities.

Despite this, I will support.

Thanks for your support. And yes, I did not define harm ... by design in fact. Oh, a nation could take a liberal view on that harm is or is not ... but that is the nature of any word in any resolution. Sure enough, if we were to put more emphasis on establishing rules of "harm" in this resolution, some nation would redefine another part of the resolution.

Frankly, a number of non-democratic nations are members of a democratic organization ... the UN. Given the shock and anger they have when I point this fact out to them, if 1/3 of those non-democratic nations realize that they benefit from peaceful participation in a democratic organization, I am hopeful that years to come they actually will embrace the basic concepts like freedom of assembly. Notice I'm not saying that they'll have a direct democracy. Mikitivity might, but Mikitivians like elections ... we have them frequently and will even vote for "none of the above" when the other options are not desirable. But the point here isn't about elections, but rather the freedom to organize with others in order to express political ideas in hopes that some of those ideas will be implemented.

Howie T. Katzman

The members and deligates have spoken!And the delegates, too.

The Most Serene Republic of Holy Persia opposed this resolution, though not because of its proposed intent, namely freedom of assembly. Our enlightened nation tolerates peaceful assembly, provided that those parties engaging in such assembly confine themselves to the "free speech zones" demarcated by the Holy Persian Security Service.

Rather it is the EXTREMELY DECEITFUL manner in which this resolution attempts to sneak in rights of freedom of association under the banner of free assembly which concerns our nation. Holy Persia is not a secular state, nor should we have to be, we have a right to national self determination. We are justly concerned that this resolution would seek to impose upon our nation the acceptance of political groups organised with the explicit intent of undermining the faith of our nation.

Why does this resolution try to SNEAK the following item into its terms like a cowardly pig-dog:

"3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and coordination of political opposition organizations"

THAT is nothing short of a right to freedom of organization and CAN NOT honestly be called a right of assembly. To say otherwise is nothing short of political doublespeak.

If the drafters of this resolution believe that it is reasonable TO IMPOSE a right of free association upon UN members - why not be honest about it, and say as much up front.

IF SUCH LIES AND DECEIT are commonplace in the name of "international cooperation" and the United Nations... Holy Persia may well have to reconsider its membership.

What use is the UN if it just to become an elite "democratic" club, with only those nations who are like minded anyway, coming together to congratulate themselves on that fact? No, the United Nations can only function if it is willing to compromise and bring nations together, instead of EXCLUDING those nations whose values and systems of governance as may differ from your own. May desert winds sting and blind those who would seek to impose their colonial and imperialist notions upon the rest of the world.

You have a strange definition of "sneak". Seems pretty obvious to me.

Freedom of Assembly in the common parlance of political affairs and governance, has NEVER EVER been considered to be one and the same as Freedom of Association .

Those two concepts have historically been, and continue to describe two very different principles. In language, we have the two different labels for a reason.


TO TRY TO DEFINE "Freedom of Assembly" as somehow including "Freedom of Association" is political doublespeak that contradicts most every dictionary and political science textbook ever conceived by man. It is an outright LIE.


So yes - it is sneaky and underhanded.

freedom of assembly

The right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.Freedom of Association

The right to associate with others for the purpose of engaging in constitutionally protected activities.So... what was your point again? Perhaps you should take PoliSci 101 again, as your definitions are clearly inaccurate. And, just in case you decide that Answer.com is not for you, I offer you the gold standard:The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments). This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.I mean, if you want to continue to believe that they're somehow different, you're more than welcome to, but trying to use modern political theory to achieve that is not going to work. To be perfectly blunt, modern political theory does not agree with you.

And, just to cut off the assumed counter that the right doesn't include "social association", the Proposal at vote says nothing about social association, and, indeed, only addresses political association. The right being confirmed is association for "the formation and coordination of political opposition organizations", which are clearly covered by the implicit right to associate for political goals. Furthermore, the rest of the Proposal allows governments to stop "groups that engage and promote illegal activities".

Not all nations conform to the dictates of the US Supreme Court.

In Australia for example, freedom of association incorporates the freedom to join such institutions or bodies as one sees fit, or not join for that matter. It is only in the last 20 years that Australia has had widespread freedom of association, as in many workplaces workers membership of a union was compulsory... they didn't have the freedom NOT to join the Union. Freedom of association is not a Consititutionally guaranteed right in Australia.

Wheras, throughout Australia's history, there has always been a right to assemble, in protest or worship etc, what the Australian High Court has deemed to be an implied right to freedom of assembly in the Australian consitution.

Simply put, assembly and association ARE NOT one and the same thing.

Your Amerocentricism speaks poorly of your approach to international affairs.

* ooc: Holy Persia, you can't reasonably expect the average player in this game to know the contitutional ins and outs of other nations nor the variances in legal definitions. There are blatantly Amerocentric resolutions, and these are irritating, but this is a fairly obscure case of international divergence. It's hardly deceitful.

Hope that's clear. *

The justified ancients of -MU-MU-, whilst only observers of the UN, have concluded they shall follow UN legislation on this matter.

Partially because when your realm is of variable size at each given moment, it's pretty difficult to police it. We have enough on our hands keeping things civil in the capital.

It is only in the last 20 years that Australia has had widespread freedom of associationPity I said "modern", huh?

Wheras, throughout Australia's history, there has always been a right to assemble, in protest or worship etc, what the Australian High Court has deemed to be an implied right to freedom of assembly in the Australian consitution.And I'm sure these are all spontanious things that make no use of association. Everybody knows that large political rallies are best done when nobody associates with anybody else.

But, I'm sure that it's only in the last 20 years that Australian geometrists have agreed that squares are actually rectangles.

Your Amerocentricism speaks poorly of your approach to international affairs.Yeah. Throw out that old yarn.

Okay. Next time I'll be sure to run an IP check an WHOIS lookup of every player before I respond to them.

Edit: Actually, having done a bit more research, I find that Australia is one of the few Federal states that does not enshrine such rights in a Bill of Rights or similar document, thus making it an annomoly, as opposed to the standard you seem to consider it. So, allow me to say that your Australiocentrism speaks poorly of your approach to international affairs.

And the delegates, too.

Yes but can they give me a Italian hero? A couple of pounds of German potato salad? Some extra large bags of potato chips? Several liters of Diet and regular soda? No only the deligates can do that. :p

OOC: I'm now convinced that this has to be a food related fredudian slip. I keep doing it again and again and I know it's wrong. And yes plenty of mayo on it, if you don't mind.

The Most Serene Republic of Holy Persia opposed this resolution, though not because of its proposed intent, namely freedom of assembly. Our enlightened nation tolerates peaceful assembly, provided that those parties engaging in such assembly confine themselves to the "free speech zones" demarcated by the Holy Persian Security Service.

Rather it is the EXTREMELY DECEITFUL manner in which this resolution attempts to sneak in rights of freedom of association under the banner of free assembly which concerns our nation. Holy Persia is not a secular state, nor should we have to be, we have a right to national self determination. We are justly concerned that this resolution would seek to impose upon our nation the acceptance of political groups organised with the explicit intent of undermining the faith of our nation.

Why does this resolution try to SNEAK the following item into its terms like a cowardly pig-dog:

"3. CONFIRMS that the right to assembly includes the formation and coordination of political opposition organizations"

THAT is nothing short of a right to freedom of organization and CAN NOT honestly be called a right of assembly. To say otherwise is nothing short of political doublespeak.

If the drafters of this resolution believe that it is reasonable TO IMPOSE a right of free association upon UN members - why not be honest about it, and say as much up front.

IF SUCH LIES AND DECEIT are commonplace in the name of "international cooperation" and the United Nations... Holy Persia may well have to reconsider its membership.

What use is the UN if it just to become an elite "democratic" club, with only those nations who are like minded anyway, coming together to congratulate themselves on that fact? No, the United Nations can only function if it is willing to compromise and bring nations together, instead of EXCLUDING those nations whose values and systems of governance as may differ from your own. May desert winds sting and blind those who would seek to impose their colonial and imperialist notions upon the rest of the world.

The provisions of the resolution are quite plainly stated. To accuse the author of "lies and deceit" is completely unwarranted and reflects very poorly upon the representative of Holy Persia.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The provisions of the resolution are quite plainly stated. To accuse the author of "lies and deceit" is completely unwarranted and reflects very poorly upon the representative of Holy Persia.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I must concur. There is no hidden agendum, and the proposal clearly states its own effects and intention.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You have a strange definition of "sneak". Seems pretty obvious to me.

That is because they can see the SECRET clauses:


1.5. CONFIRMS that this resolution cures cancer,

3.3. FORCES all dictators to peel potatoes and market them at dictator tators in domestic fast food chains,

Now why they've not quoted these secret clauses before now, I don't know. But still there is the larger issues of debate that I was trying to "sneak" by in pig-dog fashion. ;)

* ooc: Holy Persia, you can't reasonably expect the average player in this game to know the contitutional ins and outs of other nations nor the variances in legal definitions. There are blatantly Amerocentric resolutions, and these are irritating, but this is a fairly obscure case of international divergence. It's hardly deceitful.

Hope that's clear. *

OOC: Thanks! :)

I've been playing this game since Jan. 2004 and extremely active in this forum and on NSWiki. Any minor bit of research would turn up that Mikitivity is in fact based on RL Switzerland ... in this very debate I've made mention multiple times to cantons, which should be a huge give away.

Now I did also admit (which is hardly being sneaky pig-dog-like) that this resolution is in part motivated by the First Amendement to the US Constitution / Bill of Rights, but the right to assembly and associate is a right that is not unique to the United States ... and the resolution itself essentially has a war-time check/balance via clause 4 ... something not included in the First Amendment. The truth is I de-Americanized that particular document, which makes no provisions for violence. If anything, *American* styled governments should be weary ... not tin-foil hat wearing nutters.

The People's Democratic Republic normally supports civil liberties to the fullest. That said, we have reservations about this proposed Resolution.

Specifically, we do not as a matter of law permit rallies or demonstrations by hate groups - groups that advocate doing harm to, or the disenfranchisement, deportation, and/or deprivation of the civil rights of ethnic, political, or subcultural minorities, genders, or persons of a particular sexual orientation. Our concern is that this proposal will encourage activity by such groups. Of course we understand that the Resolution is non-binding, and we understand that the Resolution condemns such groups; we are nontheless still concerned about the message that it sends such people - namely that they should try to go out and actively antagonize, harrass, or offend the people they hate (we're not worried about recruitment; we can't prevent that even if we chose to).

On that basis, unless we hear a good argument to the contrary, we will abstain, albeit with the deepest regrets.

My comment about the irony of governmets opposed to democractic processes participating in one is still unanswered. The UN *is* a democratic organization. I've yet to hear a government decrying this resolution's category be able to explain their hypocrisy ... if your people don't like democratic institutions, why exactly are you in one? I am convinced that these governments haven't addressed that comment, because they know they can't.

IC:
BPL - DCE says there is no hypocrisy involved here. I am the one having the say on this issue for Excruciatia, the Policarmy ensure the rest of the population agree with me. Using the "democratic organization" of UN is just a case of fighting fire with fire, back-burning to help extinguish the repulsive main blaze.

OOC:
Take a look at the real UN's members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_member_states), are they all "Truth, Justice, The American Way, Mom, Apple Pie, & Fluffy Kittens Forever" states? Nope, some of those countries have been or are controlled by some of the biggest monsters of the last 60 years while being in the UN. The only difference between the real life dictators and those here in NS is that we are openly opposing the resolution, while they would sign it, ratify it, then totally ignore it....See the ICCPR list (http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/4.htm) as example.


As for the misconception that freedom of assembly will increase violence and chaos, not so ..... It will not REMOTELY have the impact as suggested by the ... what are you a President-For-Life, Ambassador-FOREVER, or something from where ever...

IC:
ANY sort of "freedom" IS chaos. Thoughtcrime is treason.

OOC:
...and better not call him "what are you a President-For-Life, Ambassador-FOREVER, or something from where ever." unless OOC or he'll get grumpy *rattles sabres* ;) "BPL - DRE" is ok, and lot less typing than "Beloved President for Life of the....etc etc" :)


You see, I can choose to ignore the silly rambling of nations that contradict themselves by openly advocating against democracy while participating in a democracy.

OOC:
As mentioned above, it's no contradiction to use something against itself. Which martial art it is that uses the attacker's momentum against them. Same thing here.


It affirms that people have the right to organize (assemble) in order to pursue harmless political activity. Me calling an ill-formed opinion ill-formed doesn't harm anyone. And a group of citizens wishing to propose a harmless opinion is not going to cause death and destruction as well. In the event a political group is openly committing existing crimes or even actively planning actual actions, clause 4 sweeps in to stop that.

OOC:
For Orwellian BB style states the above is summarised by "Thoughtcrime" ;)


What will happen to nations that choose to outlaw political groups, is that they will simply find sympathizers in *other* nations where totalitarian regimes have little influence and openly plot against your nations there. Ironically nations that are worried about controlling fringe groups do themselves more harm by forcing groups to ex-patriate.

It's tricky for outlaws to do that though when known problems disappear in middle of night along with families, friends, associates, etc...(the Keyser Soze law of will)...

When you think of it it's amazing Excruciatia has any propulation left at all ;)

Pete

OOC: First off i'd like to reference that the US Supreme court does NOT exist in NS (and as such, the Cornell Law Dictionary, based upon the USSCs findings, also doesn't.) Don't reference to them IC.

I like to see the representatives from The Most Glorious Hack showing only the definitions which agree with their position. This is an admirable way to conduct governmental operations, and I fail to see how you support this resolution.

((:D ))

I would however like to mention some references from other mainstream dictionaries.

Noun 1. freedom of assembly - the right peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Freedom of association is a concept based on the premise that it is the right of free adults to mutually choose their associates for whatever purpose they see fit.

I see a distinct difference.

Kimaze is an exporter of Dictator Flakes, not Taters. As the saying goes, "They WILL be delicious."

OOC: First off i'd like to reference that the US Supreme court does NOT exist in NS (and as such, the Cornell Law Dictionary, based upon the USSCs findings, also doesn't.) Don't reference to them IC.

I like to see the representatives from The Most Glorious Hack showing only the definitions which agree with their position. This is an admirable way to conduct governmental operations, and I fail to see how you support this resolution.

((:D ))

I would however like to mention some references from other mainstream dictionaries.





I see a distinct difference.

Kimaze is an exporter of Dictator Flakes, not Taters. As the saying goes, "They WILL be delicious."

OOC:
Well, the secret clause says tators ... so it sounds as though your economy is about to be screwed. :p

IC:
As for the references to the Supreme Court, those came from some opponent to the resolution whom obviously is new to NationStates, as most of us do not recognize a single Supreme Court ... the resolution itself is really all that matters, and is where we should ground our discussions.

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent,

That is what we are essentially discussing here. I'm still at a loss why nation's opposed to this resolution advocate that freedom of assembly is carte blanche for violance and subversion, given:

APPALLED that in some extreme cases the expression of these opinions has moved from political expressions into actual physical acts, sometimes resulting in harm to other people or the destruction of public or private property,

AWARE that the reaction towards the harm of others or the destruction of public or private property has been to not only restrict these acts, but to also discourage the expression of extreme differences in opinion and to prohibit the formation of political opposition groups,

And from resolution's activating clauses:


2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views in appropriate venues, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

4. CONDEMNS any political organization that advocates harm to other people or to public or private property as a means to spread terror or to gain political influence,

5. CALLS UPON political organizations to seek political change through peaceful means, and

6. ENCOURAGES national governments to open their elections and political process to any political organization that is seeking to voice its opinions through peaceful means.


All that I've really left out is clause 3, which says groups should be allowed to organize even if they advocate radical ideas. Radical is not the same thing as violent, and the minute a political group is promoting violent ideas, clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all work to hand governments their own carte blanche to maintain stability.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC:
In the 1950s a manned exploration of the moon was radical. In the 1940s a "colored" man fighting alongside a "white" man was radical. In the 1920s a woman voting was radical.

We vote in opposition to the proposal, on the grounds that (1) it does not appear to do anything not already covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) We don't like noisy and rude demonstrations, anyway.

We vote in opposition to the proposal, on the grounds that (1) it does not appear to do anything not already covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) We don't like noisy and rude demonstrations, anyway.

Actually it does many things beyond the scope of the Universal Bill of Rights (I'm assuming that is the resolution you are referring to, since there is no Universal Declaration of Human Rights in NationStates).

The Universal Bill of Rights doesn't not condemn political organizations bent on violence and hate. Nor does it really define assembly at all, whereas the first clause of this resolution defines it as political organization. Finally, the major focus of this resolution is really exploring the trade-off between peaceful political activity and more responsive governments.

I see a distinct difference.So do I. You used differen't sources for each term...

OOC: First off i'd like to reference that the US Supreme court does NOT exist in NS (and as such, the Cornell Law Dictionary, based upon the USSCs findings, also doesn't.) Don't reference to them IC.Those posts were clearly out of character by both parties.

I like to see the representatives from The Most Glorious HackDr. Leary hasn't said a fool thing.

showing only the definitions which agree with their position.Snicker-snack. Occam's razor says limited definitions were shown because checking every extant dictionary would be more effort than it's worth, as opposed to it being some sort of plot to defend an undefensible position.

This is an admirable way to conduct governmental operations, and I fail to see how you support this resolution.Out of character posts have nothing to do with the in character nation. Don't reference to them OOC.

Mikitivity is in fact based on RL Switzerland ... in this very debate I've made mention multiple times to cantons, which should be a huge give away.Damn. I was thinking you were based on Malebolge...

The governemnt of Khenas votes for this resolution, even though we are still to get offices in the UN building.

The only reason Oneechan allows gatherings of anything like this nature, is so that my soldiers can more easily gun down the disenter scum.

I strongly vote a big no on this issue.

Damn. I was thinking you were based on Malebolge...

*devil horns*

If that was the case, surely I would never publically ADMIT it.

The only reason Oneechan allows gatherings of anything like this nature, is so that my soldiers can more easily gun down the disenter scum.

I strongly vote a big no on this issue.

And in reply to Oneechan's honest justification for a no vote, the intent of this resolution was never to provide facists target practice, thus my government appreciates the "restraint" shown by Oneechan in not making it easier for their soldiers to target dissents. Besides, Miervatian banks have long enjoyed overseas anonyamous accounts, including those that might be from Oneechan expatriates. I stress "might".

Howie T. Katzman

We disagree. The exclusion in Clause 1 allows us perfectly ample leeway to protect the wellbeing of our citizens. If we had any concern whatever that this was not the case, we would vote against the resolution. We do not, and have voted for it.

Petrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

See Clause 2. That's where our objection lies.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You mean this clause?

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views in appropriate venues, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

As these would be individuals nascent, and residing, within your own nation, and the target of their "action" would be the government alone, they would more accurately be referred to as "Freedom Fighters".



KILL YOU!!!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Dr. Leary hasn't said a fool thing.


He hasn't said a thing has he?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11762117&postcount=85

Please try and be accurate when you reference to something like Occam's Razor.

Occam's razor says limited definitions were shown because checking every extant dictionary would be more effort than it's worth, as opposed to it being some sort of plot to defend an undefensible position.

Occam's Razor means only make it as complex as is neccesary.

Two obscure dictionary references is not conclusive evidence. I was pointing out that alternate definitions exist and therefore Occam's Razor does not infact apply.

Out of character posts have nothing to do with the in character nation. Don't reference to them OOC.

OOC: Unless properly marked as OOC this becomes ambiguous. So perhaps it would be prudent to more actively mark your reponses.

In any case, Kimaze has already inacted legislation to deal with this proposal, whether it passes or not.

I need get back to Kimaze to try and revitalize the food industries. Dictator Flakes sales are dropping dramatically in this time of severe shortage of Milk of Opression...

You mean this clause?

Yes, that clause.

2. ASSERTS that individuals should have the right to freely assemble with others who share even extreme political views in appropriate venues, in order to better work within domestic and international political systems in a peaceful way,

Certain "extreme political views" are not peaceful at all, by their very nature.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Certain "extreme political views" are not peaceful at all, by their very nature.Yes, but the only right being "asserted" is that to assemble with likeminded folks in order to work within the system peacefully. Where peaceful means are not used, there is no right protected.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Certain "extreme political views" are not peaceful at all, by their very nature.

I disagree. By extreme political views I meant far reaching or non-traditional views. For example, in Mikitivity women did not always have the right to vote. At the time, political groups advocating that women should be allowed to vote were considered "extreme". They weren't violent. Aslan Faction was violent ... they actually burned buildings, beat Miervatian business owners, and resorted to organized theft and in some cases sabotage of flood control projects.

Since the resolution expressly condemns violent groups, but allows "even extreme" views, this means that you start with the legalization of any group, but the minute they endanger public or private safety ... basically when they turn to violence, they can be disassociated.

The resolution essentially is a contract that says, "If you work within the system peacefully, the system will acknowledge you and respect your right to associate and meet."

I honestly hope that helps. My nation's record as a "moderate" should stand on its own ground. As a confederation we certainly see the value in international law and the UN, but we also recognize the trade-off in all things. This resolution includes several trade-offs, including one that political activity should be peaceful in order to be beneficial. :)

Howie T. Katzman

He hasn't said a thing has he?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11762117&postcount=85Far be it for me to speak for Hack, but is that post signed by Dr. Leary?

He hasn't said a thing has he?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11762117&postcount=85As Flib pointed out, that wasn't signed by Doctor Denis Leary, so it wasn't said by him. It was said by me.

OOC: Unless properly marked as OOC this becomes ambiguous. So perhaps it would be prudent to more actively mark your reponses.I've been playing this game since March of 2003. I'm well aware that the US Constitution does not exist in NationStates. Your inability to read context clues is not my failing. The posts were clearly out of character, so your comments were utterly unwarrented. My in character posts are always signed by the character speaking and have no signature. My moderator comments are clearly marked with my title and have no signature. Out of character comments are simply posted 'as is' and have the signature. I like to give players the benefit of the doubt and assume they're smart enough to figure things out without condescending little 'ooc' tags. And while you're at it, why don't you go look at the post I was responding to. It was a discussion of definitions and not one of government position.

Next time you decide to pop off, you really should pay attention to what's actually going on. I don't need a lecture on forum mores from you.

News commentary from the Fanny Moo (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fanny_Moo) Examiner on Line.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g136/regnans/East%20Gippsland/examiner.gif

PROTESTERS TO TORCH EXECRA HEADQUARTERS

IMPENDING UN LEGISLATION INCITES DESTRUCTION

Hundreds of thousands of protesters have gathered outside the headquarters of Execra Ltd in Errinundera’s (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Errinundera) capital First Creek Falls (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/First_Creek_Falls) to condemn its practice of selling dead animal products in its crimeburgers in the nearby nation of Consumer Engineering. Many commentators are blaming the imminent passing of the UN resolution on freedom of assembly for the destructive mood of the protesters. “Errinundrians see this resolution as a severe restriction on their human rights,” says sociologist ediocri. “In addition, equating private property with living creatures is, for many, extremely offensive.”

The clause that seems to give most offence is the first, which reads:

REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent.

Failed revolutionary iananme, one of the organisers of the protest, is far more blunt in his assessment. “Private property is theft; theft is violence. We must protect ourselves against the likes of Execra and its cronies. This company must and will be torched (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Corporate_Torching).”

Clearly, several issues need to be untangled here.

CRIMEBURGERS

Execra Ltd is an Errinundrian corporation that has struggled to sell its line of vegie burgers. In recent times it has expanded into foreign markets and achieved remarkable success in Consumer Engineering with its range of frozen hamburgers. Vegetarianism (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Vegetarianism_in_Errinundera) is mandatory within Errinundera (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Errinundera), but not Consumer Engineering. The chief executive officer of Execra, nyexcu, is defiant. “Our company has always abided by the law and will continue to do so. It’s a good thing this UN resolution is going to be passed. It’s about time the population of this stupid nation was put in its place. Errinundrians must become good consumers whether they like it or not. Killing animals is unimportant where profits are involved.”

CORPORATE TORCHING

Magisterial law in Errinundera has, since the 1941 liberation, held that a corporation loses the protection of the law should it behave in an egregious fashion. We asked Fanny Moo magistrate snapisnapiestu (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Snapisnapiestu) whether the activities of Execra Ltd would fall under the category of egregious. “Most definitely,” she told our reporter. “On a broad level, any activity that offends large numbers of Errinundrians is normally held to be egregious. More particularly, the promotion of and profiting from flesh eating has been held to be egregious in numerous decisions. That the activity took place in another nation has no bearing on the matter. The company headquarters are in Errinundera and it is here they must face the music.”

THE UN RESOLUTION

The question arises whether actions such as the imminent destruction of the Execra headquarters will become illegal once the UN resolution has been passed. First Creek Falls magistrate, opdo, is not concerned. “There are several reasons why Errinundrians will continue to have the right to assemble riotously. First, the resolution proscribes harm to private property. There is no private property in Errinundera. Failed revolutionary, iananme, has missed the point. All trees and buildings are owned publicly and users pay rent at market prices for their use. For sure, the resolution also proscribes harm to public property but the catch is in the words “without consent”. When the public destroys public property, consent is not an issue.”

opdo explains that magisterial law goes even further on the matter. “Corporations have 3 components: the people that are involved in them; the physical assets such as buildings and stock; and the abstract idea of the corporation itself, including goodwill, reputation, strategies etc. All Errinundrians, whether human or otherwise, have the right not to be killed or injured. To that end we have ordered everybody to evacuate the Execra headquarters. Junior magistrates have inspected the building and have given the all clear. Destruction of the building will not endanger human life. The building itself has no rights and the abstract notion that is Execra Ltd has forfeited whatever rights it may have had.”

POLITICAL REACTION IN ERRINUNDERA

The Errinundrian ambassador to the UN, oasyourto, has been instructed to vote against the resolution. “The intention of the resolution is admirable,” says Errinundera’s Protector of Foreign Affairs and Other Overseas Activities, iveitu, “however, I believe the unintended effect is to promote the curtailment of civil liberties. Errinundrians hold dear their right to destroy misbehaving corporations.” Was she concerned that civil rights in Errinundera will be diminished by the resolution? “Actually, it’s such a piss weak resolution it doesn’t matter.”

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST the resolution "Freedom of Assembly" after reviewing the opinions of the members of the region.

Hellar Gray

It was a discussion of definitions and not one of government position.

I was joking about your government. I hardly thought it would inspire such heated debate.

You can be as condescending as you like, but it only reflects poorly upon yourself.

1. REAFFIRMS the equal right of individuals to freely express any opinions in a political process, provided that these opinions do not result in harm to other people or to public or private property without consent.

I shall post my reply from my national forum and hope it has context here… even if it is late:

In principle, I agree with what this resolution is attempting to do. However, like the creation of the “Human Rights Council” in real life I fear that this is simply re-stating the status quo therefore has no real effect.

Moreover, I don’t think that this would prevent derogations by simply stating that its “aware” of how Governments can simply claim “harm to others” as grounds for suppression. We all know “national emergency” is used to overrule the 1951 ECHR in order to create anti-terror legislation in the UK but it still occurs doesn’t it?

Finally, the quote I’ve given above worries me greatly. Primarily because it doesn’t specifically define what constitutes harm to others to my satisfaction. I acknowledge that it’s specific about *physical* harm but it doesn’t detail what measures it would put into place for *psychological* harm.

This seemingly would allow for “extremists” to use psychological intimidation on minority groups so the rest of society could claim that it is “taking the moral higher ground”. I personally would prefer to defer to my nation’s articles pertaining to non-discrimination rather than a smug sense of moral superiority.

Furthermore, in such cases of psychological intimidation "consent" would be close to (if not worse than) the consent young men are supposed to get to avoid claims of rape in the UK (i.e. vague, confusing, and unworkable).

In my opinion this is a vaguely worded, pointless resolution therefore I’ve voted against in the hope that a future resolution will combine principle with practice. I am sorry to the creator nation but I do hope that this is somehow repealed in order to allow a definitive resolution to pass in the future.

One which clearly defines all the terms used (e.g. what constitutes "consent"?) and expresses the mechanisms via which it will ensure the desires become reality (e.g. how does one ensure individual sov. when dealing the realm of psychology?).

Our congratulations to the distinguished representative of Mikitivity on the passage of this fine resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

You can be as condescending as you like, but it only reflects poorly upon yourself.

Funny, I was about to suggest the same to you.

OOC:
I'd like to thank those of you whom participated in the draft proposal process and took this proposal seriously enough to encourage me to pursue the concept of freedom of assembly and political expression (something that means a great deal to me in real life -- where I've been volunteering as a poll worker since 1998). I simply would not have done so without your support. :) I also am extremely thankful of the support many established / active UN players gave this proposal / resolution in the past two months.

My goal with this proposal was to create something that was open enough to respect the sovereign rights of nations, but also to assert that free and peaceful expression are crucial to political processes, especially democratic processes such as the one used in this game for voting on resolutions.

Despite the RPed ojbections of some players, I honestly think this was one of my better written resolutions and count it among one of the ones of the entire body of NSUN resolutions that I like. It isn't too detailed (a point some players like to exploit via loopholes) and it wasn't too vague (a point other players like to exploit again using loopholes). When you stand in the middle, you tend to be attacked by extremists on both sides ... which was true here.

I didn't have the time to devote to the debate that I would have liked, as I started a new job this week. There are numerous IC / OOC comments that pro/neutral/opposed that were sincere and I would have liked to have had more time to devote to those responses. At least I'd like to point out that I have been faithfully reading every reply in this thread and took the time to consider the posts that most interested me and that I felt I could quickly respond to. In short, I wasn't ignoring anybody.

I'll soon be conducting the analysis of voting between this forum poll and the overall UN vote. My hypothesis is that, like many other resolutions, that the UN forum tends to attract more complainers and negative votes than the overall UN membership (previous polls have beared this trend out). Before anybody whom might feel I've labeled as a complainer complains ... I hope you will understand that I do believe that *is* a valid way to play the game and that I also appreciate that this resolution was enough to command your attention for the past five days. :)

I already had a stub article up on NSWiki, but I'll devote more time to summarizing the debates (which have been emailed to me -- I'm old school and like to read reports / transcripts in hard copy).

Again, as Ambassador Katzman might say:

Vielen Dank!!!
-Michael

My governmnt stayed out of this debate because we didn't think, "Yay, Mikitivity!" would add much to the discussion.

Now, though, it's appropriate. Yay, Mikitivity!

I've seen many a resolution attacked as gormlessly, but I've seen very few defended as good-humouredly. Congratulations to the Mikitivity delegation.

IC:
The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia wishes to thank all those nations who supported this resolution. Despite his original concerns the effect of the resolution has been extraordinary for The Revolution.

Not long after it passed a loyal citizen of Excruciatia rang the Crimestop Hotline with information that a few leaders of a notorious Anti-Revolutionary group who had been in hiding for years were now at a local park trying to gather support for their treasonous activities. Three Companies of the Policarmy were dispatched. They confirmed the citizen's report and arrested the traitors, who were then sent to the Dictatorship of Dystopiacia for an Extensive Encouragement in Patriotism Conference. When (IF) they return in 20-30 years they will be cured of their sickness and will able to be productive citizens of Excruciatia.

Thank you all again from the people of Excruciatia.


OOC:
Nothing ever goes as planned ;)


LATER:

IC:
DRE has left the UN and annexed a small neighbouring country to handle regional problems. The Protectorate of Excruci-rUiNation shall take over UN activities for DRE, still contacting UN as Excruciatia.

BPL has contacted The Dictatorship of Dystopiacia to arrange the return of our property that we loaned them. BPL is sure that the Extensive Encouragement in Patriotism Conference will go a LOT better if the people attending the EEPC could do it in their own country...Under the personal supervision of BPL.


OOC:
Insert Darth Vader's theme here..... :D

Normally I just make edit to UN NSWiki articles that probably go largely unnoticed by all but Jey and a few other NSWiki enthusiasts -- this fine.

But I wanted to call attention to the article that is still not complete for this resolution:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Freedom_of_Assembly

In particular scroll down the voting analysis. In a few months I'll do some more with the analysis. I'll soon have a new PC at home, so I also plan to add information to the plots such as sample sizes and talk about that as well (in brief fashion).

In general, if you ever are a resolution author and would like me to make similar figures ... I will, so long as your polls lend themselves to these sorts of analysis (read: the options need to be boring <-- this isn't to say that I discourage silly polls, in fact I don't ... I just don't feel my graphic design skills can really do much to those sort of polls). Things I like: public polls, this gives me "age" info. UN member vs. UN delegate vs. Non-member -- I think we should encourage non-members to "observe" and participate. Likewise, I'd actually encourage pupets to reply *when* the Non-member and member categories are included. And I think abstain is a neat option too!

Finally, it is always important that you close your poll a day after the resolution vote concludes. Open polls don't really allow for static comparisons of overall UN voting behavior vs. our little world.

Ultimately, polls are a nice flashy way to give more nations a chance to "say" something without saying something. I've encouraged region based players to swing by and vote, but this time there weren't but a few I recognized. Oh well.