NationStates Jolt Archive

I wish to raise awairness of the following proposal



Harmful organizations
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Garbledeenia

Description: RECOGNIZING that all people have the right to form organizations to voice opinions.

ALSO RECOGNIZING that the government has a duty of care over the citizens they represent.

CONCERNED that organizations can promote an idea that is compromising to the safety of the people and hurtful to minorities. Also concerned that governments have no way to stop this behavior until it escalates into violence.

THEREFORE the UN in assembly should grant governing bodies the power to prosecute those involved in hatful and hurtful organizations

I ask any delegate who cares about the wellbeing of their citizens to support this proposal

prosecute those involved in hatful and hurtful organizationsl

http://www.sattlers.org/mickey/travel/1998/burningMan/images/19980805086-all-dressed-up.jpg

I believe this would qualify as both hatful and hurtful.

I believe this would qualify as both hatful and hurtful.

Other options:
[ ] A weapon of mass destruction.
[ ] Wasn't she in Clash of the Titans?
[ ] I see NOTHING, NOTHING I tell you. And plan to keep it that way.
[ ] So it is hideous clown escalation day ... two can play that game!
[ ] An abuse of image tags.
[ ] Surely against the JOLT family friendly policy.
[ ] If not against the JOLT family friendly policy, where can I request the policy be changed?
[ ] Well, I guess I won't be using those glasses again.
[ ] Your mom.
[ ] No, let's hope that THING never reproduces.

I've been informed by the chairman of the Hirotan Hat-wearing gentlemens club that they are outraged by the attempt to infringe on their fundamental rights to wear a hat.

I have been asked to petition Garbledeenia to reconsider their irrational hatred of hat wearers.

Does this contradict "Freedom of Assembly"? Both are sufficiently mild that they're probably compatible; but in any case, the fact the UN was willing to sanction FoA suggests it wouldn't take kindly to this.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Does this contradict "Freedom of Assembly"? Both are sufficiently mild that they're probably compatible; but in any case, the fact the UN was willing to sanction FoA suggests it wouldn't take kindly to this.


Director Madison,

That is an extremely well thought question. I'll point to the portion of the Freedom of Assembly resolution which I think is most relevant:

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,

The Freedom of Assembly resolution really was based (i.e. this is what I used to promote the idea) on the belief that extreme differences of opinion are OK, so long as they are just voiced opinions and not harmful actions enacted on others. The key really is "result in harm to other people ... without consent".

I would argue that as distasteful as the image posted by Frisbeeteria is, that the act of looking like a prop from Clash of the Titans is not really harmful. Certainly publicly advocating that people can paint themselves green and walk around half naked and everything else hideous looking is just promoting an idea, and the Freedom of Assembly resolution was based on the belief that ideas should be allowed to be expressed, especially in political venues such as this one.

Howie T. Katzman

Right; I'd forgotten how forceful the initial clause was. In that case, this proposal seems illegal, because FoA protects ideas, so long as they do not lead to actual harm, whereas the idea of being 'hurtful' seems a more figurative kind of harm.

My suggestion for the proposal would be to concentrate more on organizations that cause actual harm (although this has perhaps? already been covered sufficiently by UN Counterterrorism Initiative).

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Right; I'd forgotten how forceful the initial clause was. In that case, this proposal seems illegal, because FoA protects ideas, so long as they do not lead to actual harm, whereas the idea of being 'hurtful' seems a more figurative kind of harm.

My suggestion for the proposal would be to concentrate more on organizations that cause actual harm (although this has perhaps? already been covered sufficiently by UN Counterterrorism Initiative).

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

It also could reinforce issues related to groups that actively organize and support hate crimes. This still may conflict with some interpretations of the Freedom of Assembly resolution, but in many nations planning activities that directly harm others is already illegal and was never intended to be protected by the Freedom of Assembly resolution.

In other words, a bunch of NeoNazis can not actively plan out how to kidnap and torture a bunch of people. However, I'd argue that they might have the political right to argue that the right to assemble and plot crimes should become a lesser or different sort of crime (assuming it already is).

What is left unaddressed in both Freedom of Assembly and this proposal is addressing the larger question of "What is hurtful?" or "What is harm?". My government intentionally did not spell this out, as we did not feel it is the UN's place to get into that degree of micromanagement.

The loophole that can always be used in "mild" proposals / resolutions is the document can "condemn" certain acts. Even the Freedom of Assembly did this with one of its later clauses (I'd show you via NSWiki but it is late in my timezone ... zzzzzz). ;)

The truth is the proposal is written to a category and actually is a good use of the category. Something the mods are constantly reminding players to do ... despite a bit of teasing, I'm not opposed to seeing something that basically says nutjobs do not have the right to actually harm people.

...I'm not opposed to seeing something that basically says nutjobs do not have the right to actually harm people.

Aside from being implicit in the previously cited clause from "Freedom of Assembly," that's something that can be handled perfectly well by nations' own criminal law. No need for the UN to step in.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The point of this act is not to prsocute those commiting offences in the name of an oginization as such. It deals more with prevention, giving govenments the ability to identify groups supporting racest or harmfull ideas and stop them before any violent action is taken and harm is actuly done. Whilr the FoA does contain a cluase to prosocute groups that do harm it does nothing to prevent the harm actually happening

The point of this act is not to prsocute those commiting offences in the name of an oginization as such. It deals more with prevention, giving govenments the ability to identify groups supporting racest or harmfull ideas and stop them before any violent action is taken and harm is actuly done. Whilr the FoA does contain a cluase to prosocute groups that do harm it does nothing to prevent the harm actually happening

...That MIGHT not be good. Suppressing organizations because they might harm people can destroy the Freedom of Assembly.

Really, I would like to have an organization first do something stupid, and then I would ban them. Otherwise, if I ban them beforehand, the liberals will start saying I'm suppressing free speech and their rhetoric didn't really mean they would acutally do violent things. It is better to let the enemy strike first, so that you get to claim 'self-defense'.

And if it turns out the group doesn't do any harm at all, well, then, horray!

The point of this act is not to prsocute those commiting offences in the name of an oginization as such. It deals more with prevention, giving govenments the ability to identify groups supporting racest or harmfull ideas and stop them before any violent action is taken and harm is actuly done. Whilr the FoA does contain a cluase to prosocute groups that do harm it does nothing to prevent the harm actually happening

In other words, you want to prosecute people for thought crimes. We would strongly urge you not to go down that road, even were it legal; it is precisely what the Freedom of Assembly resolution prevents.

...That MIGHT not be good. Suppressing organizations because they might harm people can destroy the Freedom of Assembly.

Really, I would like to have an organization first do something stupid, and then I would ban them. Otherwise, if I ban them beforehand, the liberals will start saying I'm suppressing free speech and their rhetoric didn't really mean they would acutally do violent things. It is better to let the enemy strike first, so that you get to claim 'self-defense'.

And if it turns out the group doesn't do any harm at all, well, then, horray!

That is exactly my government's position as well.

Our stance on this matter is that it is something best left to individual nations to resolve in the manner they see fit. We simply don't see the need for legislation on this matter.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

OOC: Proposals like this make me wish I'd made Freedom of Conscience a lot more stringent.

OOC: Proposals like this make me wish I'd made Freedom of Conscience a lot more stringent.

OOC: Proposals like this make me wish I had a ball-peen hammer with which to pound away at my own skull.