NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom of Assembly

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

Nations of the World Assembly,

BELIEVING that it is an inherent right of every individual to freely associate and assemble,

APPALLED that in some nations this right is not enjoyed by all their peoples,

APPLAUDING the use of peaceful protest as a means to bring about political discussion and/or change,

DENOUNCING violence, fear, and/or terrorism as ways of bringing about these changes as a result of restriction of these freedoms,

Hereby establishes the following:

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.

3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.



Any comments are welcome

I think your spellchecker did the traditional thing of ignoring capitalised words. "BELIEVING" has two 'e's in it.

• All sentient beings shall have the right to peacefully assemble and associate to promote, pursue, and express a even an goal or cause regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, physical characteristic, religion, political ideology, and/or species.
Express a what?

• No sentient being shall be forced to include themselves as a member of a group or organization against their free will.
I'm not sure why, but "against their free will" makes me nervous. I think it's something to do with the potential for some theocracies creating obscure doctrinal loopholes. If that's all, feel free to ignore me.

• No state shall deny right of protest to those with views that are even radically opposed to those of the government.
What's the "right of protest"? If you mean the right to peaceful assembly in the first bullet point, say so, otherwise people will take it to mean what they want it to mean.

I think your spellchecker did the traditional thing of ignoring capitalised words. "BELIEVING" has two 'e's in it.

It has not been working lately for inane reasons all it's own


Express a what?

It was a hanger left over from an earlier draft, fixed

I'm not sure why, but "against their free will" makes me nervous. I think it's something to do with the potential for some theocracies creating obscure doctrinal loopholes. If that's all, feel free to ignore me.
I see you mean, I may put a definition into there later

What's the "right of protest"? If you mean the right to peaceful assembly in the first bullet point, say so, otherwise people will take it to mean what they want it to mean.


Originally it was supposed to be "right to protest", but I merged into the first clause

I wish to back this resolution at the World Assembly

I approve this a lot. :salute::salute:

Go ahead but I hope it can have a little better wording.

I will support it. I do hope it will not be seen as banning a certain kind of government like a dictatorship.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate of Intelligentsia Islands

Banning dictatorship? That is crazy! I am a dictator, so what?
This is my nation, only from me! You dont got anything to say, i am a dictator and i wont stop that. You are not allowed to ban it!

Go ahead but I hope it can have a little better wording.

I will support it. I do hope it will not be seen as banning a certain kind of government like a dictatorship.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate of Intelligentsia Islands

When 'the previous international organisation' debated (and passed) a resolution on this topic several dictators made comments along the lines of "Let them assemble, that will make it easier for me to know who should be arrested..." :(

Urm... is it just me who's spotted a ma-hoo-sive loophole?

This guarantees the right to peacefully protest/assemble/etc., but does nothing to stop a government from shooting them/sending in cossacks/flinging dead badgers at them anyway...

This has to include a proviso that freedom of assembly cannot extend to calling to violence, riots, revolts or involvement in any actions that could harm innocent people. No freedom is absolute, and assemblage is no exception.

Nix the "regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, physical characteristic, religion, political ideology, and/or species" thing; we have other resolutions that will ban discrimination and observe the rights of non-human species, so you don't have to repeat the same thing over and over in all resolutions.

Finally, you can't reserve the right to assembly to "all sentient beings," unless you really think that (normal) chimpanzees and dolphins (which are arguably sentient, not sapient) should have the same rights as humans and sapient beings. I'd avoid use of sentient/sapient altogether, and just say "individuals."

Urm... is it just me who's spotted a ma-hoo-sive loophole?

This guarantees the right to peacefully protest/assemble/etc., but does nothing to stop a government from shooting them/sending in cossacks/flinging dead badgers at them anyway...

"• No state shall deny right of protest to those with views that are even radically opposed to those of the government."

I originally added this clause to prevent that, but it just seemed kinda repetitive

This has to include a proviso that freedom of assembly cannot extend to calling to violence, riots, revolts or involvement in any actions that could harm innocent people. No freedom is absolute, and assemblage is no exception.

Will be added


Finally, you can't reserve the right to assembly to "all sentient beings," unless you really think that (normal) chimpanzees and dolphins (which are arguably sentient, not sapient) should have the same rights as humans and sapient beings. I'd avoid use of sentient/sapient altogether, and just say "individuals."

I just was trying not to repeat all the UN proposals that only mentioned humans, but "individuals" solves that nicely.

This draft reaks of moral relativism, offends the Mother Church, and should not be pursued further. I would ask any state that opposes the stain of relativism and actually stands for something to rise up in opposition against this if it should ever, God forbid, turn into an actual proposal.

"• No state shall deny right of protest to those with views that are even radically opposed to those of the government."

I originally added this clause to prevent that, but it just seemed kinda repetitive.
Unfortunately I think His Exellency's right. Shooting, sending in the cossacks and flinging dead badgers aren't strictly speaking denying the right of protest. You probably need something explicitly preventing the state from arresting, harrassing or harming the protesters as long as the assembly is peaceful and not trespassing or breaking any other laws like that. That's going to be a bit tricky to write without creating another massive loophole. Hmm.

The Environmental Fiscal Union of Minnow Economies endorses and encourages this proposition, although we agree with the factions that have suggested that a clause be added explicitly forbidding governments from intervening to stop such gatherings in any manner.

On the other hand, it is the foremost responsibility of a Government to protect its civilians, and as such, if there were mitigating circumstances, such as an approaching storm, or any other situation that was not of the Government's creation that could endanger the lives of the protestors, we would hope that the Government could intervene to preserve the lives of its civilians in such circumstances.

We therefore suggest the following:

3. No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to assault, apprehend, disperse, or otherwise discriminate against any individual involved in a peaceful protest;

a) Unless circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of the protestors.

4. Should these exceptional circumstances arise, the Government;

a) Is required to have a clear plan to move the protestors to a reasonable place of safety where the protest may continue;
b) Must inform the protestors of the situation, and obtain the uninfluenced assent of the a spokesperson of the protest to move the protest to the pre-planned, secure venue;
c) Is responsible for any injuries, deaths, or misadventures that take place during such Emergency Action;
d) Must immediately allow the protest to re-continue at its original venue when the situation improves;
e) Is answerable to the International Court of Law (ICL) should a plaintiff of any nationality come forward suggesting that the Government acted unjustifiably under the terms of this resolution.

We feel that by adding this in, we could allow any form of *peaceful* protest to go ahead, and also make provisions to prevent Governments from doing nothing when members of the public are endangered. If the International Court of Law were to oversee such actions, we are confident that it would not be abused, and the best compromise between Freedom of Expression, and security of the civilians and of the nation would then be reached.

In any case, we grant our assent to this proposition.

Khalix Singh
Minnow Economixian and Environmental Nations Delegate to the World Assembly
The Axe Office
Minnow Economies

All sentient beings shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express a goal, cause, or view even radically opposed to those of the government; regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, physical characteristic, religion, political ideology, and/or species.

As a nation with a strong, active Catholic majority who follows the teachings only of the Mother Church and the Holy Father, the USSC requests that the WA reduce her framework to creating necessary, just international standards such as mandated access to clean drinking water rather than blatantly violating the sovereignty of the WA member states.

The USSC cannot allow heretics, homosexuals, abortionists, and other such apostates to meet within her borders and plot the overthrow of our divinely mandated government. Rather than pursuing a bill that will undoubtedly lead chaos and instability throughout the world, the WA should consider drafting a bill that will allow the USSC and other non-relativistic nations to transport heretical, undesirable elements of the population to other nations which are willing to grant them asylum.

As a nation with a strong, active Catholic majority who follows the teachings only of the Mother Church and the Holy Father, the USSC requests that the WA reduce her framework to creating necessary, just international standards such as mandated access to clean drinking water whether than blatantly violating the sovereignty of the WA member states.

You're new to the WA aren't you?


e) Is answerable to the International Court of Law (ICL) should a plaintiff of any nationality come forward suggesting that the Government acted unjustifiably under the terms of this resolution.
If the International Court of Law were to oversee such actions, we are confident that it would not be abused, and the best compromise between Freedom of Expression, and security of the civilians and of the nation would then be reached.

I don't think an International Court of Justice has been created at this point, nor are there any plans in the future i'm aware of. I think it would be more practical to create a committee for this specific purpose, than make an International Court and spell out all it's responsibilities and duties

"• No state shall deny right of protest to those with views that are even radically opposed to those of the government."For the overlegalistic members of this assembly, I might suggest "No state shall infringe upon the right of protest etc." It's hard to argue that governments will be able to beat protesters then. [rolling eyes smiley]

3. No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to assault, apprehend, disperse, or otherwise discriminate against any individual involved in a peaceful protest;
Even if those protesters are ever-so-peacefully indulging in trespass on private property?

I don't think an International Court of Justice has been created at this point, nor are there any plans in the future i'm aware of.
You're right about there being no ICJ at the moment, but I've seen several plans to create one recently. Cruddy and illegal, but plans none the less.

Ambassador Shemp's "infringe upon" suggestion looks good enough to get past Reasonable Nation Theory. It'd still be nice to do it properly, though.

Edited the OP to include the newest draft

Clause #2 effectively bans both compulsory education and military conscription... and arguably the imprisonment of criminals, too. Was this amongst the author's intentions?

Clause #2 effectively bans both compulsory education and military conscription... and arguably the imprisonment of criminals, too. Was this amongst the author's intentions?

Shoot, I want to include something along those lines though without banning all the things you said.

I need to look over clause #5 again as well, I think it's a little too open for interpretation

I have to say that I'm very unkeen on the 1/1a format you're using. It smacks of writing a soundbite and only plugging the inevitable holes as an afterthought. Clause 3 is a particularly horrid example, because it's so unnecessary; if you deleted the characters "a)" and "b)", repunctuated and recapitalised, you'd have perfectly valid and understandable English.

Also, doesn't proper outline format demand that there always be at least two subsections if you create a subsection? In other words, if you have an 1a), you need a 1b). Thus 3 and 3a should be collapsed into a single section. Especially since 3a is just a prepositional phrase.

Okay edited the OP, I threw out clause #2 saying "no one shall be forced to join an organization against their will" and edited the format

I think we need to clarify peaceful assembly. im hoping you mean that people may assemblre without being arrested or hurt (a.k.a. they are allowed to assemble w/out having other people do illegal things to them.).
I hope you dont mean that people are allowed to assemble without any one else assembling or protesting them, or "intruding" legaly on their assembly.

just a tiny *bump*

OP Updated

BELIEVING that it is an inherent right of every individual to freely associate and assemble,

APPALLED that in some nations this right is not enjoyed by their citizens,

Oh, cool! We get to discriminate as much as we want against the noncitizen part of our population! And to think, we were being nice and allowing for our slaves to enjoy the freedom of protest. According to this, we get to beat and protest organizer until they can't even stand and it's perfectly legal.

In all seriousness? Remove the citizen requirement and replace it with "people" or "peoples." Not every nation extends full citizenship to its entire population.

APPLAUDING the use of peaceful protest as a means to bring about political discussion and/or change,

DENOUNCING violence, fear, and/or terrorism as ways of bringing about these changes as a result of restriction of these freedoms,

I like this section.

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express a goal, cause, or view even radically opposed to those of the government.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon the right to protest; unless the individuals protesting are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of the protestors present themselves.

3.) Should these exceptional circumstances arise, the Government:

a) Is mandated to have a clear plan to move the protestors to a reasonable place of safety where the protest may continue;
b) Must inform the protestors of the situation, and the plan to move the protest to the pre-planned, secure venue;
c) Is responsible for any injuries, deaths, or misadventures that occur during such Emergency Action;
d) Must immediately allow the protest to re-continue at its original venue when the situation improves.

And if the protestors resist violently? Do we not have the right to do what is necessary, even if it means possibly killing some of them?

4.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, revolution, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

I like this one.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Edited OP

Changed "citizens" to "peoples" to include everyone and also added a clause provinding for the event protesters refuse to cooperate when the respective authorities.

You need "The World Assembly" or "The Nations of the World Assembly" or somesuch in there. Right now it reads:

BELIEVING...

APPALLED...

APPLAUDING...

DENOUNCING...

Hereby establishes the following:

You could either have:

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING...etc
or
The World Assembly hereby establishes the following:

Other than that it looks good.

I don't think that should be considered Furtherment of Democracy.
Democracy means everyone can vote for their own government.
What you are describing is furtherment of Civil Rights.
The Federation of Gresson is not a country one would describe as democratic (although there are discussions allowed, etc.), but we are aiming at having excellent civil rights.

I don't think that should be considered Furtherment of Democracy.
Democracy means everyone can vote for their own government.
What you are describing is furtherment of Civil Rights.
The Federation of Gresson is not a country one would describe as democratic (although there are discussions allowed, etc.), but we are aiming at having excellent civil rights.
Furtherment of Democracy is the proper category. There is no "furtherment of Civil Rights" category.

Furtherment of Democracy is the proper category. There is no "furtherment of Civil Rights" category.

Now that I'm looking at it

Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Probably wouldn't be a bad fit, is that a new category?

Now that I'm looking at it



Probably wouldn't be a bad fit, is that a new category?
No, the Human Rights category has always had that description. The right to peaceably assemble and protest seems like more of a political freedom though. UNR #179: Freedom of Assembly was Furtherment of Democracy (mild) and it covered much the same ground as yours.

No, the Human Rights category has always had that description. The right to peaceably assemble and protest seems like more of a political freedom though. UNR #179: Freedom of Assembly was Furtherment of Democracy (mild) and it covered much the same ground as yours.

That's why I put it in that category. I'm going to stick with Furtherment of Democracy.

I think then you are going to loose a lot of votes from dictatorships, monarchies, etc.
A country may be a dictatorship and have civil rights, remember.

I think then you are going to loose a lot of votes from dictatorships, monarchies, etc.
A country may be a dictatorship and have civil rights, remember.

Well, I'm not exactly trying to make Dictatorships and Absolute Monarchies happy.

You are supporting legislation that benefits only a certain percentage of WA countries, while directly causing harm to the other certain percentage? You realise that dictatorships and absolute monarchies are NOT a minority in this world?

You are supporting legislation that benefits only a certain percentage of WA countries, while directly causing harm to the other certain percentage? You realise that dictatorships and absolute monarchies are NOT a minority in this world?

Sooner or later, you'll come to the conclusion that majorities and minorities don't really matter. Also, that almost every single resolution hurts some and benefits others.

That being said, I am ready to help this resolution reach quorum, so long as the following revision is made:
1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully and publicly assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express a goal, cause, or view even radically opposed to those of the government.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I am a supporter of this, but I know how picky the WA can be. Here are a few suggestions.

A. Things that could be offensive to many, make more vague.
B. Make the things that are confusing people (the ones in the past comments) more specific, but not far left or right.
C. Make it possible to please either side of the political spectrum.

It is a great idea though, and I would love to endorse it!!!

:salute:

For me, this focuses far too much on the logistics of planned protests. I would delete the entirety of clause three, so the proposal can be more framed for preserving the essential right, rather than small details (besides, I would think most reasonable governments already had a handle on how to assuring the safety of protesters). You can replace it with more general language, like: "Governments are responsible for the safety of public protesters, and the safety of the surrounding community, while legal protests are occurring."

Also, something the UN resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/21855/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=178) covered and this one does not: freedom of association and the right to organize. In short, people have the right to meet with others who share their political goals, even radicals, and not be hauled off as political prisoners for their trouble; additionally, people have the right to establish formal clubs, organizations or political parties to advance their goals.

All this aside, the final clause is essential and I would not drop it or significantly revise it by any means.

For me, this focuses far too much on the logistics of planned protests. I would delete the entirety of clause three, so the proposal can be more framed for preserving the essential right, rather than small details (besides, I would think most reasonable governments already had a handle on how to assuring the safety of protesters). You can replace it with more general language, like: "Governments are responsible for the safety of public protesters, and the safety of the surrounding community, while legal protests are occurring."

My concern would be that some of our more unreasonable WA bretheren could simply keep saying it's an "exceptional circumstance" everytime a protest began and continuously ended them because of that.

Also, something the UN resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/21855/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=178) covered and this one does not: freedom of association and the right to organize. In short, people have the right to meet with others who share their political goals, even radicals, and not be hauled off as political prisoners for their trouble; additionally, people have the right to establish formal clubs, organizations or political parties to advance their goals.

Don't I have that in clause one?

My concern would be that some of our more unreasonable WA bretheren could simply keep saying it's an "exceptional circumstance" everytime a protest began and continuously ended them because of that. Maybe, if the second clause said "exceptional circumstance," but it doesn't. It says, "if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of the protestors [sic] present themselves." That wording is a bit more precise. Further instructions on corralling the protesters in such an event are not needed.

Don't I have that in clause one?Ah, I missed the word "association" there. I was more referring to specific clauses protecting freedom of association and the right to organize, like in the original FoA res.

Maybe, if the second clause said "exceptional circumstance," but it doesn't. It says, "if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of the protestors [sic] present themselves." That wording is a bit more precise. Further instructions on corralling the protesters in such an event are not needed.

ok, makes sense

Ah, I missed the word "association" there. I was more referring to specific clauses protecting freedom of association and the right to organize, like in the original FoA res.

I'm going to add something like "without fear of government <intervention?>" but I have to figure out a better word.

Freedom of Assembly

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

Nations of the World Assembly,

BELIEVING that it is an inherent right of every individual to freely associate and assemble,

APPALLED that in some nations this right is not enjoyed by all their peoples,

APPLAUDING the use of peaceful protest as a means to bring about political discussion and/or change,

DENOUNCING violence, fear, and/or terrorism as ways of bringing about these changes as a result of restriction of these freedoms,

Hereby establishes the following:

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.

3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

Nixed Clause 3, Generalized Clauses 1 & 2 to be more inclusive.

This looks good. When are you planning to submit?

Couldn't this cause a great deal of destabilization in fledgling nations?

This looks good. When are you planning to submit?

Submitted this morning.

Couldn't this cause a great deal of destabilization in fledgling nations?

It would depend on the stability of the fledgling nation. The only real problem I could foresee it causing would be controlling the protestors if they resort violent means. This proposal does support anything other than peaceful assembly and association. If a government is having that much trouble because of these rights being followed according to this proposal perhaps they should not be in power.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

Is that the official position of those you represent? I hope not. The idea that it is acceptable to destabilize weaker nations makes me question the motivation of this. Is it to allow people the right to free assembly, or to weaken nations new to the World Assembly to maintain a hegemony of power amongst the elite?

The World Assembly has no policing body. You acknowledged that it was an acceptable risk for governments to not only be destabilized but apparently completely overthrown. Who is going to fix the mess? How can you possible guarantee these protests will remain peaceful?

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

Is that the official position of those you represent? I hope not. The idea that it is acceptable to destabilize weaker nations makes me question the motivation of this. Is it to allow people the right to free assembly, or to weaken nations new to the World Assembly to maintain a hegemony of power amongst the elite?

The purpose of this proposal is essentially to ensure people have to assemble to further and share goals or changes they would like to see. Other than that I’ve no idea where you’re getting the idea of a “hegemony of the elite”.

The World Assembly has no policing body. You acknowledged that it was an acceptable risk for governments to not only be destabilized but apparently completely overthrown. Who is going to fix the mess? How can you possible guarantee these protests will remain peaceful?

How can you possibly guarantee they won’t remain peaceful? It’s purely in the hypothetical realm. Just because a nation is new does not mean it should be able to restrict key rights. This proposal doesn’t support or call for the violent overthrow of any government, it denounces it. However If a majority people wanted to see a change in their government, they still should be able to do so, but only in a peaceful manner; which, this proposal does support.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

I think it's natural to be suspicious when a WA representative publicly acknowledges their apathy toward the idea of government destabilization. I appreciate the backtrack but that was a frightening statement. You are the one proposing this as a fundamental right, something that you have no authority to establish. What about the fundamental right of safety?

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

You are the one proposing this as a fundamental right, something that you have no authority to establish. What about the fundamental right of safety?

It is my right and duty as a World Assembly Ambassador to propose and endorse legislation that I believe would benefit the world. Acting on that, I believe in the right of people to join together to pursue, support et al., a common goal peacefully. The proposal is not a call for, nor will be the cause of destabilization of governments.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

You've had your say Mr. York, already. Allow me to quote you:

"If a government is having that much trouble because of these rights being followed according to this proposal perhaps they should not be in power."

A beautiful piece of diplomacy.

We may not be the most powerful or influential nation. But we are not fools. And if no one is willing to speak for the weakest nations, I suppose that will have to be Alector's role.

Alector stands for the rights of small nations that would be exploited by an elite that openly acknowledges they have no concern for the results of their sweeping declarations, as you did above. Alector does not have reason to fear peaceable protests. But we are not so blind as to believe every nation has the same history and culture we do. There are many nations need a small spark to set the fire aflame. Doesn't the world assembly have a duty first to improve the conditions in these nations so political freedoms are realistic? Or are we to sacrifice practicality for ideology? I think you said it best already.

"This proposal doesn’t support or call for the violent overthrow of any government, it denounces it."

While you are safe in your home, denouncing violence, I'm sure the government and citizens of nations dealing with a reign of terror will happily put aside their differences because Mr. York thinks they are being naughty.

No, this proposal is an example of the distance prosperity allows. It is the disconnect between the elite and their victims. I hate to use such a loaded term, but "cultural imperialism" seems apt. Freedom of assembly is valuable in countries where individuality reigns supreme. I suppose collectivist cultures should just throw down their values and adopt the superior culture you represent? And if a few people die while you are trying to accelerate the evolution of nations, that's an acceptable risk, as you acknowledged.

And if the massive economic force of Cookesland is there to pick up the pieces, well, all the better right? You can spread your ideals and make a buck!

Just remember: It won't be on your doorstep Mr. York, but the blood will still be on your hands.

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

"Comrade Morel, calm down. You must be willing to realize that even established nations may fall due to internal pressures. Korintar has, from time to time, experienced this danger due to its radically democratic society. However we have had the strength to realize that we must pull together to accomplish our collective goals as a socialist nation. 'Collectivist cultures should just throw down their values'- ha, this resolution will do no such thing. Korintar already obeys this resolution and we are collectivist to the core! One thing that we do agree though is that we should improve conditions in fledgling nations who are suffering. We already have resolutions that deal with these matters I believe."

The Assembled Directory of The Free Democracy of Korintar

NB- The Directory is the supreme executive council of FDK. Just to let you know.

As frightening statements go, Representative Morel, yours is right up there.

"If a government is having that much trouble because of these rights being followed according to this proposal perhaps they should not be in power."

A beautiful piece of diplomacy.

We may not be the most powerful or influential nation. But we are not fools. And if no one is willing to speak for the weakest nations, I suppose that will have to be Alector's role.
Your implicit definition of "weak" here is very revealing. A weak nation appears to be one which can't afford to have its citizenry be seen to peacefully protest about anything. That's it. Personally I'd call that a paranoid nation, and I'd suggest that a government that felt that insecure honestly shouldn't be governing.

There is no earthly reason for "small" to mean "weak", or for "weak" to mean "fearful". A government that hasn't learned at least the second one of those is doomed no matter what the WA does.

It was not the intention of Alector to offend any of the vastly more powerful nations of the World Assembly. If my words seem frightening, it is because the people of Alector are fearful. Not of such protests in their nation, but of the danger of instability amongst its neighbors, and the apathy displayed by Mr. York.

My issue is not really with the idea that freedom of assembly should be a protected right. We can get into a philosophical debate on such rights, but I acknowledge most would consider it a fundamental human right. My issue is that absolutely no concern has been given for the destabilizing effect violent protests may have. The World Assembly condemns violent protests in this proposal, but it does nothing to protect a nation's population from them. Let's face it: Can it really do anything about them?

Think of it this way. It would be like proposal forcing nations to allow every citizen to drive a car. What about nations who couldn't afford to set up licensing facilities? What about nations who can't enforce speed limits? You can't go from no freedom of assembly one day, to complete lack of restriction the very next. Mr. York first said he didn't care about those nations, then he wisely changed his tune and said that just wouldn't happen. Well I believe we should care, and I believe we have no way to know what effect this could have.

Let's bring freedom to the world, yes. Absolutely. But let's think about the consequences of those actions and ensure they can be alleviated. This proposal cannot possibly ensure this won't facilitate violent protests, riots, and yes perhaps even revolution. Maybe some think it will be good if their enemies are overthrown, but I believe the World Assembly should work to bring about natural evolution towards freedom, not violently accelerate nations into the modern era.

Of course, the people of Alector are not in the business of dictating. We can only go with whatever course the World Assembly sets, and hope we don't capsize. Just do not forget your weaker neighbors when you remake the world in your own image.

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

ambassadors,


i'm interested in knowing why no nation takes up the challenge of writing a human rights bill instead of attacking certain rights, one by one. if any WA memeber does wish to, then i would gladly help out in any way and co-author a proposal.

Wachichi

So, you’ve finally caught on to my diabolical plan to ensure Cookesland’s economic hegemony over the weaker nations of the world. Here, I thought using a proposal supposedly to increase the democratic freedoms of the world would be the perfect medium to accomplish my evil scheme.

Richard “Bloody Hands” York
WA Ambassador

The World Assembly condemns violent protests in this proposal, but it does nothing to protect a nation's population from them.
The World Assembly doesn't need to do anything to protect a nation's population from violent protests. Article 3 of the Resolution plainly states:

3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

In other words if a protest turns violent, or calls for violence, it is not protected under the terms of this Resolution. At that point you may use force to suppress or break up the protest, a power that your government already has.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We allow freedom of assembly and association as long as it is peaceable. We only break it up if the physical well being and life of bystanders is clearly threatened. If violence breaks out as a result of law enforcement actions, we feel sorry if any of our officers are hurt, but that is the only reason we feel pitiful, for our law enforcement officials are expected to exercise self-discipline to a degree not seen amongst the police forces in most other countries. Whoever initiates force, without clearly just cause, faces punitive action.

The World Assembly has no power to back up its denouncement of violent protests. It is creating fires it cannot put it out. That remains the problem. I am not questioning whether or not the World Assembly as a whole is trying to initiate revolution, though I maintain Mr. York's language was irresponsible at best, nefarious at worst.

I'm questioning what the World Assembly is prepared to do should this measure have very foreseeable and potentially dangerous consquences. Right now, the answer appears to be absolutely nothing, much to the dismay of myself and those I represent.

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

The World Assembly has no power to back up its denouncement of violent protests. It is creating fires it cannot put it out. That remains the problem. I am not questioning whether or not the World Assembly as a whole is trying to initiate revolution, though I maintain Mr. York's language was irresponsible at best, nefarious at worst.

I'm questioning what the World Assembly is prepared to do should this measure have very foreseeable and potentially dangerous consquences. Right now, the answer appears to be absolutely nothing, much to the dismay of myself and those I represent.

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

It's not the WA's job to break up riots in your nation or any other nation regardless of what caused the riot. Hell, the WA can't as we don't have any sort of police or military force.

You really need to go back and reread clause 3 of this proposal
3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.What this is saying is that should a protest turn into a riot your police forces have the right to break it up.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

How benevolent to grant nations rights they already have. And the nations that don't possess the capability to control such violence will have to fend for themselves, as will their unlucky neighbors. I am appalled by the complete lack of responsibility displayed here.

It's not the WA's job to break up riots in your nation or any other nation regardless of what caused the riot. Hell, the WA can't as we don't have any sort of police or military force.

Exactly. That was what I stated just before you spoke.

"The World Assembly has no power to back up its denouncement of violent protests. It is creating fires it cannot put it out."

Our only point of difference seems to be my belief that the WA should not be inciting riots and revolution, and the prevailing opinion that such collateral damage is not the WA's problem, even if they are the ones creating it!

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

Just four more to go... going good.

Quorum Reached!

Well done. Congratulations!

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

"The World Assembly has no power to back up its denouncement of violent protests. It is creating fires it cannot put it out."
It's not creating a single fire that didn't already exist. If anything, it's dousing the flames of violence by creating a non-violent option.

How benevolent to grant nations rights they already have.What can I say, you're talking to the guy who has made it an art form by doing that on two seperate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110) occasions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835811&postcount=12).:D
And the nations that don't possess the capability to control such violence will have to fend for themselves, as will their unlucky neighbors. I am appalled by the complete lack of responsibility displayed here.Hmm, that's funny, I was under the impression that the WA's responsibility was to make the world a better place one resolution at a time. Now, it seems to me that granting the citizens of WA member nations the right to peacefully assemble would fall into the category of making the world a better place.



Exactly. That was what I stated just before you spoke.

"The World Assembly has no power to back up its denouncement of violent protests. It is creating fires it cannot put it out."

Our only point of difference seems to be my belief that the WA should not be inciting riots and revolution, and the prevailing opinion that such collateral damage is not the WA's problem, even if they are the ones creating it!

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

You know, I doubt that these "riots and revolution" that you're so terrified of will be the problem that you think it's going to be. After all, chances are that those nations who prohibit assemblies that this proposal allows have enough police to be able to enforce such a draconian law and would certainly be able to deal with any riots that may happen after said laws were repealed.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We really do not fear riots or protesters taking to the streets, Mr. Morel, but that is because we are used to it. The Korintari delegation respects your concerns, as they are valid from our experience (you need to be some sort of martial arts grand master to survive an appointment to our People's Assembly, in fact, for things get violent). However, inspite of that, we are a strong nation, able to work through its differences, if that is not possible, we allow for peaceable seccession. And we also oppose your line of reasoning, as we are of the school of thought that if the social contract between the people and their governors is not strong enough to protect life, liberty, and equality; either against government encroachment and ineptness, demagoguery, ignorance and terror en masse, or other such threats- the binding ties must be ruptured.

My region, well applauding the ideals of the bill, must disagree with the means to set it in place. We do not like the idea of the World Assembly dictating what rights of assembly a Nation must (Or must not) have.

So again we applaud the ideal, but we must place our regional vote (and singular votes) AGAINST the current resolution, despite knowing that this vote will almost certainly fall as a protest vote.

We congratulate the esteemed and honoured delegation of Cookesland on bringing their statute to vote.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench is glad to be able to vote for this measure, which will safeguard an important personal liberty of the citizens of of member states of this organisation.


Yours e.t.c. ,

These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

In other words, Freedom of Assembly does not apply to advocating any actions that would inconvenience or annoy anyone. A corrupt official should resign? No, he's innocent, and this would harm him. A wrongly convicted prisoner should be released? No, this would damage the reputation of the well-meaning judge who convicted him. An unjust war should be ended? No, this would harm the grieving families of the brave soldiers who have already died. People should be allowed to choose their religion? No, innocent children would be harmed by being caused to question the holy truth.

That final phrase completely obliterates the whole rest of the Resolution. It's not worth passing - it means nothing. The Seniors of Zion will vote against.

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Comrades of the assembly,

There was been much talk in this forum of the dangers of allowing the freedom to assemble. It has been said that this right to peacefully assemble could destabilize newer, smaller nations and lead to riots and revolution.

Let me tell you what happens, my comrades, when these freedoms are not allowed. When we were part of the Soviet Socialist Republics of the West Pacific, the citizens lived in fear. Secret police might have been listening in on every word one would say. And assembling? That could only happen in the darkest of corners of our nation, in basements and in bars. Even then, it was not safe.

Was there law and order? Of course. Was the nation peaceful? Yes, if you don't count the brutality enacted upon those who met in these dark basements by the police.

By the way, do you know what the end result of not allowing the people to voice their distaste with the Soviet government was? An army of giant robots, led by myself, destroyed Novagrad and took power for the people by force. The end result of restricting people's freedoms was much more destructive than the right to assemble would have been. We have a saying in Jaynova: "Раскройте клапан теперь, предотвратите взрыв более поздно." Loosely translated, it means, "Releaving pressure will prevent an explosion."

It is our opinion, but an opinion that we are more than happy to impose on other countries, that our governments should be here for the people. If the people are disatisfied, especially between elctions, they should be allowed to assemble, to protest, to make their needs and grievences known.

I have spoken with the United Socialist State Senate, and we have unanimously agreed to vote "YAY."

Thank you."

In other words, Freedom of Assembly does not apply to advocating any actions that would inconvenience or annoy anyone. A corrupt official should resign? No, he's innocent, and this would harm him. A wrongly convicted prisoner should be released? No, this would damage the reputation of the well-meaning judge who convicted him. An unjust war should be ended? No, this would harm the grieving families of the brave soldiers who have already died. People should be allowed to choose their religion? No, innocent children would be harmed by being caused to question the holy truth.

I believe that you've misunderstood that clause. It does not apply in the cases you have mentioned, because those have nothing to do with assemblages as set forth by this resolution.


Despite my previous concerns, I have reconsidered my position and decided to vote for this resolution.

I am voting against this resolution. While I do agree with the idea that all nations should allow the freedom to assemble; there is no means included in this resolution that would actually enforce that WA member nations are following this policy; aside from just assuming that they are.

You have my full support, noting that freedom of assembly is a natural right has it has been since the start of time.

The good but slightly unwholesome senator looks up from cleaning his Colt 1911a. He gives a smile most unpleasent to the assembly and says,
"You lucky sods! I wish I could sit here and listen to my own voice. I've cast the palentine's vote for this proposal from a region mate, but my government has no strong feelings either way, so I am open to 'persuation', if you get my meaning."

The senator reaches under his desk and pulls out a large(but empty) Fine Yeldan Pickle Jar(TM). He places it on the front of his desk.

"Y'all are familiar with the drill, folks. Place the bribe...err....financial inducement into the jar. The largest inducement gets my vote. All gifts are non refundable."

I am voting against this resolution. While I do agree with the idea that all nations should allow the freedom to assemble; there is no means included in this resolution that would actually enforce that WA member nations are following this policy; aside from just assuming that they are.

[OOC: Correct me if I'm wrong (I've been away for a good while), but won't the Compliance Comission (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Compliance_Commission) cover this?]

My nation prides itself on our security, and with this act it will comprimise this. By allowing Freedom of Assembly, even though its meant to be peaceful, will entice Terrorists and enemys of the Protectorate to gather and destroy our freedom and our racial pride.

I vote DOWN this proposition to prevent the undesirable to gain favor and take over our country, the gypsy, the homosexual, the handicapped, the eldery, the bigtopian, our nation is considering leaving the Alliance to form one with our beliefts.

The right to peaceably assembly and protest is one highly valued by the people of Snefaldia; my government supports the extension of legal protection of these rights to the international community.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

My region, well applauding the ideals of the bill, must disagree with the means to set it in place. We do not like the idea of the World Assembly dictating what rights of assembly a Nation must (Or must not) have.

Well, that's kinda what the World Assembly does on a regular basis. I assume since you are in support of this there is some form of Freedom of Assembly and Association in your nation. This resolution introduces basic legislation establishing this rights, it should not effect any laws in nations where these freedoms are already enjoyed. I hope you reconsider your postion on this resolution.

My nation prides itself on our security, and with this act it will comprimise this. By allowing Freedom of Assembly, even though its meant to be peaceful, will entice Terrorists and enemys of the Protectorate to gather and destroy our freedom and our racial pride.

How exactly will this compromise your nations security? As stated in the third clause this resolution can't be extended to calls for violence and terrorism. This resolution will not jeopardize the safety of anyone in your nation, not will it destroy your freedom. Quite, the contrary actually it seems like from the description of your nation.

I am voting against this resolution. While I do agree with the idea that all nations should allow the freedom to assemble; there is no means included in this resolution that would actually enforce that WA member nations are following this policy; aside from just assuming that they are.

You should probably have a word with the Compliance Comission on your way out.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

I vote DOWN this proposition to prevent the undesirable to gain favor and take over our country, the gypsy, the homosexual, the handicapped, the eldery, the bigtopian, our nation is considering leaving the Alliance to form one with our beliefts.

If you do decide to leave, fine. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

T'blis Oltavi *in Horatio Sulla's face, sneering*: "Sen. Sulla, I can see why you are described by your delegation as unwholesome. If you need a bribe to decide how to vote, abstain. I am not sure about the rest of the assembly, but we do not care for crooks all that much!" Sr. Dir. Salazar *to the assembly*: "That said, we have cast our vote as FOR, as we believe free association and free opinionation are fundamental rights. Liberty and Honor for All, that's what we believe in...that's what we practice!" *cheers amongst Korintari, and some other democratic delegations in attendance*

Civil rights? Right to assembly? Happy people rioting in love?

Count me in. I vote for.

T'blis Oltavi *in Horatio Sulla's face, sneering*: "Sen. Sulla, I can see why you are described by your delegation as unwholesome. If you need a bribe to decide how to vote, abstain. I am not sure about the rest of the assembly, but we do not care for crooks all that much!" Sr. Dir. Salazar *to the assembly*: "That said, we have cast our vote as FOR, as we believe free association and free opinionation are fundamental rights. Liberty and Honor for All, that's what we believe in...that's what we practice!" *cheers amongst Korintari, and some other democratic delegations in attendance*



The decent but thouroughly suspect Senator Sulla is a lovable rogue,honoured Ambassador. He is in excellent standing with this organisation and is greatly loved by many, particularly the younger female staff of certain delegations we are told.

We would like to offer the honoured Senator 60,000 casks of the finest Vodka of Ryazan and a lifetime membership to our Summer capital Tabriz's premier men's interests establisment, The Hairy Pie bar.

For his vote in favour of course.


Yours e.t.c. ,

I believe that you've misunderstood that clause. It does not apply in the cases you have mentioned, because those have nothing to do with assemblages as set forth by this resolution.




If I assemble a group of people to harm innocent people, then Freedom of Assembly does not extend to that assemblage. These are the plain words of the resolution. There is no definition of innocence, nor of harm. The examples I gave are all interpretations of these words of the resolution, showing that the suppression of assemblages advocating certain things is in no way contrary to the resolution. The most repressive government imaginable can agree to the resolution while retaining the legal right to suppress any assemblage, no matter how peaceful, that it wishes to.

It may be that the authors of the resolution do not intend such interpretations. They should then have written what they meant, using clear language not subject to creative interpretations of undefined terms. Unfortunately, laws are enforced according to their content, not the intent of those who wrote them. And you can assume that a repressive government will interpret those words in the way that allows them the greatest ability to suppress assemblages, demonstrations, etc. that seem to threaten them in any way.

Passing this resolution gives the blessings of the WA to this kind of repressive behavior. The only Assemblages that must be allowed are those that cannot be construed as harming anyone. How many causes, no matter how noble, can you think of that can be guaranteed to harm no innocent person? Not many, I warrant. And certanly not important reasons to assemble and petition, as I listed in my examples: Corruption, injustice, aggressive warfare, suppression of fundamental human liberties. I challenge those who disagree to come up with a single example of an assemblage for a meaningful purpose that does not advocate actions that can be construed as harming someone innocent.

Tell me, why was this clause not limited to the violence or rioting portion? Can an individual who believes the "harming the innocent" clause is a valuable part of the resolution explain what kind of beyond-the-pale (yet peaceful and non-riotous) assemblages it intended to allow to be suppressed?

- SrZion -

To the Seniors of Zion delegate:

First, your previous message:

In other words, Freedom of Assembly does not apply to advocating any actions that would inconvenience or annoy anyone. A corrupt official should resign? No, he's innocent, and this would harm him. A wrongly convicted prisoner should be released? No, this would damage the reputation of the well-meaning judge who convicted him. An unjust war should be ended? No, this would harm the grieving families of the brave soldiers who have already died. People should be allowed to choose their religion? No, innocent children would be harmed by being caused to question the holy truth.

That final phrase completely obliterates the whole rest of the Resolution. It's not worth passing - it means nothing. The Seniors of Zion will vote against.

You must realize that these assemblages seek to have their voices heard, but they themselves won't directly achieve anything.
If some protestors accuse an official of corruption and call for his/her resignation, does that mean that the official has to? No.
If some protestors say a prisoner should be released because they feel the conviction was incorrect, does that mean the prisoner will be released? No.
If some protestors say a war is unjust and should be ended, does that mean it will end? No [OOC: RL war in Iraq].
If some protestors say they should choose their religion, does that mean that they will be allowed to? No.

In every example you gave, the protestors can surely voice their opinions, but that doesn't mean that anyone has to listen to them. They won't harm the innocent official or the judge or the families or the children, especially if no one listens to them.
[OOC: Do you think families of fallen soldiers in Iraq are racked with grief anytime someone decided to protest the war? How many of those families actually side with those calling for the war's end?]

Clause 3 states:
3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

Saying that an official is corrupt and should resign isn't particularly harmful.
Saying that this official should be killed is.

Remember, everyone has the right to say anything (within limit), but everyone doesn't have to listen unless it's serious.

To the Seniors of Zion delegate:


[OOC: Do you think families of fallen soldiers in Iraq are racked with grief anytime someone decided to protest the war? How many of those families actually side with those calling for the war's end?]



[semi-OOC reply: Doesn't matter. If even one innocent person is caused additional grief by war protests, that is justification, according to the clause we are arguing about, for the protests to be shut down.]



Clause 3 states:


Saying that an official is corrupt and should resign isn't particularly harmful.
Saying that this official should be killed is.

Remember, everyone has the right to say anything (within limit), but everyone doesn't have to listen unless it's serious.

I think the representative from Subistratica suffers from the delusion that because he feels it isn't particularly harmful to call for the resignation of an official, that that will therefore be the opinion of The Mad Fascists of Glorious Leaderland. The resolution fails to establish that the opinion of Subistratica is to decide such questions. Even words like "violence" and "rioting" can be misconstrued, but at least there is general agreement that words, and even insults, are neither violence nor rioting. But "harm"? "innocent"? These words have no generally agreed-on legal meaning. People have been known to commit suicide because their reputation is attacked. How can you say there is no harm involved in a questionable accusation of corruption?

I repeat my challenge. Show me a situation where an assemblage calls for neither violence nor rioting, but where it is appropriate for the government to suppress it.

- SrZion -

Welcome to NationStates

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them. Join the World Assembly or remain a rogue state. It's up to you.
This is the Welcome entry to the NS players. The upcoming resolution is nothing than a breach of rules. If this so-called resolution passes, it's a violation of the independence of the NS nations. It should never had passed through the stage of voting in the first place. Say NO to this illegal breach of rules.

Welcome to NationStates

NationStates is a free nation simulation game. Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them. Join the World Assembly or remain a rogue state. It's up to you.
This is the Welcome entry to the NS players. The upcoming resolution is nothing than a breach of rules. If this so-called resolution passes, it's a violation of the independence of the NS nations. It should never had passed through the stage of voting in the first place. Say NO to this illegal breach of rules.

Bullshit, go read the FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/80918/page=faq#WA) especially the section on the WA which states.
The WA is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

I would really like to cast my nation's vote in favour of this proposal, as freedom and democracy are highly valued amongst my people, but find myself somewhat troubled by a point of wording in the second of its operative clauses_ 2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.
By only allowing action to prevent these assemblages only when they intrude on private property, would it not require us to allow mass intrusion into nation-owned premises, such as (for example) military bases or the very chambers in which our government meets, to the detriment of those places' proper functions? Must we therefore arrange matters so that all such places are, at least nominally, somebody's private property?!?


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

_______________________________________________________

(OOC: I really wish that I'd caught this point while the proposal was still being drafted, but I've been rather busy lately -- with both RL & RP -- and it slipped past me...)

I would really like to cast my nation's vote in favour of this proposal, as freedom and democracy are highly valued amongst my people, but find myself somewhat troubled by a point of wording in the second of its operative clauses_
By only allowing action to prevent these assemblages only when they intrude on private property, would it not require us to allow mass intrusion into nation-owned premises, such as (for example) military bases or the very chambers in which our government meets, to the detriment of those places' proper functions? Must we therefore arrange matters so that all such places are, at least nominally, somebody's private property?!?


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

_______________________________________________________

(OOC: I really wish that I'd caught this point while the proposal was still being drafted, but I've been rather busy lately -- with both RL & RP -- and it slipped past me...)




Surely honoured Ambassador, property which is state owned is in fact the property of the people ? Therefore they cannot possibly be tresspassing on such land.


Yours e.t.c.

I would really like to cast my nation's vote in favour of this proposal, as freedom and democracy are highly valued amongst my people, but find myself somewhat troubled by a point of wording in the second of its operative clauses_
By only allowing action to prevent these assemblages only when they intrude on private property, would it not require us to allow mass intrusion into nation-owned premises, such as (for example) military bases or the very chambers in which our government meets, to the detriment of those places' proper functions? Must we therefore arrange matters so that all such places are, at least nominally, somebody's private property?!?


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

_______________________________________________________

(OOC: I really wish that I'd caught this point while the proposal was still being drafted, but I've been rather busy lately -- with both RL & RP -- and it slipped past me...)

Perhaps the maxim of the state being "man writ large" is not applied in your state? The right of the people to express discontent with their government- the state composed by and for them- is sacrosanct. Why, just a few months back our government was deadlocked by thousands of protesters calling for dissolution of parliament! We certainly didn't arrest them for trespassing, considering every citizen has the right to enter public land.

At least, that's the way it works in Snefaldia. It would think that philosophically, if you adhere to the democratic concept of government composed formed by mandate of the people, such federal/state/government/public/national lands belong directly to the people.

N.T.
etc.

The Holy Empire of Cult Imperialis wishes it to be known that this resolution is simply unnacceptable. Any rallys of a political nature, especially those which call for an alteration in leadership, is heresy and a direct blashpeme against the Emperor.

The established order, as it has been for the last 10,000 years, has served the Imperium in a positive respect, and within itself has permitted the ruling party to maintain order without hesitation. The Adeptus Arbites, alongside the criminal sections of the Commissariat (sub-division of Departmento Munitorium) have been implemented to not only seek out and punish criminals, but also heretics, and now you wish for them to be legalized!?

If said resolution is passed, and not repealed, the Holy Empire of Cult Imperialis will be forced to withdraw from the World Assembly, and sever diplomatic relations to said heretics.

The Emperor Protects.

Commissar-General Steven Bryant
Segmentum Diplomat
Commissariat, Political Division

_____________________________
OOC: Hardly fitting of my canon, I fear.

Alector has officially lodged its vote against this proposal. It poses a danger to fledgling nations and their neighbors. Alector will not support any measure that relies on ideology without taking into account the dangers of inflicting that ideology on less developed and developing nations.

On a personal note, I am truly sorry I was not skilled enough to circumvent the propaganda of imperialists. If the World Assembly will indulge me, I would like to quote Dylan Thomas to Cookesland and its supporters,

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night."

Wherever enemies of peace and tolerance threaten the economic security of the World Assembly, Alector will be prepared to raise its voice in opposition. Hopefully other enemies of cultural, and economic imperialism will join Alector in the future.

Orion Morel
World Assembly Representative of the Federation of Alector

T'blis Oltavi *in Horatio Sulla's face, sneering*: "Sen. Sulla, I can see why you are described by your delegation as unwholesome. If you need a bribe to decide how to vote, abstain. I am not sure about the rest of the assembly, but we do not care for crooks all that much!" Sr. Dir. Salazar *to the assembly*: "That said, we have cast our vote as FOR, as we believe free association and free opinionation are fundamental rights. Liberty and Honor for All, that's what we believe in...that's what we practice!" *cheers amongst Korintari, and some other democratic delegations in attendance*

The good but unwholesome senator looks up at the pesky commie who seems to be about to expire in a purple frothing rage. Calmly the Senator takes a large drink from the glass of Wild Turkey(TM) on the rocks sitting on his desk. Afterwards the senator picks up his cigar from the ashtray, puffs on it for a minute and expels a large cloud of fragrant blue smoke that wafts over on the pesky commie. Giving the fellow a smirk the senator says,
"My dear fellow, you really need to calm down. If you're not careful you're going to give yourself a stroke. You really must be new to the festering snakepit.....errr General Assembly. I've never made any claims of being honest. I've a large number of unsavory habits that needs large amounts of cash to procure. perhaps it will help you out if you read this. (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Horatio_Sulla)
(the senator hands the man a dossier.)

"Also I wish to thank the Urgenchi khan for his generous offer. While I prefer Fine Yeldan Vodka(TM), the Urgenchi stuff comes in at a close second. I will keep the offer in consideration. Now anybody else?"

T'blis Oltavi *in Horatio Sulla's face, sneering*: "Sen. Sulla, I can see why you are described by your delegation as unwholesome. If you need a bribe to decide how to vote, abstain. I am not sure about the rest of the assembly, but we do not care for crooks all that much!" Sr. Dir. Salazar *to the assembly*: "That said, we have cast our vote as FOR, as we believe free association and free opinionation are fundamental rights. Liberty and Honor for All, that's what we believe in...that's what we practice!" *cheers amongst Korintari, and some other democratic delegations in attendance*

We couldn't have said it better ourselves. We enthusiastically cast our vote FOR this resolution.

How cheerless it must be in Korintar and Scotchpinestan.

Yours e.t.c. ,

How cheerless it must be in Korintar and Scotchpinestan.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Exactly how do you imply that from our statements? (One could certainly imply it by the recent passage of the World Assembly Economic Union, but as you well know, most people get over those things in a few days.)

We do not imply anything from your statements honoured Ambassador.

However your statements did suggest a certain cheerless puritanical streak might be prevalent in your revered and renowned nation

I would like to offer the good but slightly unwholesome Sen. Sulla a lifetime supply of Queen's Hornybostwicket New Leicestershire Whisky in the hopes that he will vote For this Resolution. New Leicestershire Whisky is similar to the smooth Kentucky Bourbon made by our American cousins, so I trust the Senator will find it to his liking.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

*after reading bio* "Ha, Ha, Ha! Methinks I know why Palentine picked you," roared T'blis Oltavi with glee. "Yer da' world's drinkin' bud aint ya! Vell, mine questionable comrade, methinks I ken persuade ya to me point o' view over a copious 'mount of buffalo wings!?! Am I not right? Da vee vinges are a bit me vice, ya know!" "Dat ravenous, lusty, lil volf," snickered Security Director Cheri Konstado, playing with her long, shiny black hair, "I question ol' Sulla's hetero cred for he's ne'er noticed moi!"

Honorable delegates,

Balbosia recently withdrew our vote in favour of this Resolution, Freedom of Assembly. After much consideration, we have decided that Operative Clause 3 of the Resolution is too nebulous to be rightly implemented, and may in some cases be interpreted to justify actions which are wholly antithetic to the Resolution's original intent. Balbosia would like to encourage an amendment to the Resolution which specifies the harm in question as physical harm and removes the word "innocent". Such an amendment would be sufficient to restore our favorable vote.

Yours etc.
John Stanford Elliott
Foreign Minister Plenipotentiary
The Democratic Republic of Balbosia

I approve this issue :)

This resolution goes directly against the very culture of the holy empire of tybra. Our people gave up their politcal freedom in exchange for civil rights and economical support. There are however certain protestors wich need to be executed.
Political gatherings will not only result into chaos but also it may lead to popularism wihc will surely lead to dictatorship.
Our history tells us that despite protest will be peacefull this will not always be the case and that this may lead to bloody revolutions in certain nations.

For these Critical reasons the holy empire of Tybra rejects this resolution.

It sounds like a wonderfull idea
I would accept the proposal, if I could find the poll to vote on, if there is one.

The established order, as it has been for the last 10,000 years, has served the Imperium in a positive respect, and within itself has permitted the ruling party to maintain order without hesitation. The Adeptus Arbites, alongside the criminal sections of the Commissariat (sub-division of Departmento Munitorium) have been implemented to not only seek out and punish criminals, but also heretics, and now you wish for them to be legalized!?

If your establishment is so secure then you really should have nothing to fear from people protesting or assembling to voice and discuss their opinions. Just because people have the right to protest does not mean they will necessarily call for your immediate overthrow. Nations such as yours are a large part of my inspiration for writing this proposal, I might add.

If said resolution is passed, and not repealed, the Holy Empire of Cult Imperialis will be forced to withdraw from the World Assembly, and sever diplomatic relations to said heretics.

To quote my colleague from Flibbleites “If you do decide to leave, fine. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.”

Balbosia recently withdrew our vote in favour of this Resolution, Freedom of Assembly. After much consideration, we have decided that Operative Clause 3 of the Resolution is too nebulous to be rightly implemented, and may in some cases be interpreted to justify actions which are wholly antithetic to the Resolution's original intent.

Clause three is like that for a good reason. A nation can still allow organizations that call for violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people, but are by no means obliged to do so. If the nation then decides they no longer wish to allow them, said organizations, movements, et al. can not hide behind this resolution. Can you give me some of these cases that can be interpreted to antithetically justify actions?


Tybra;14300134'] Political gatherings will not only result into chaos but also it may lead to popularism wihc will surely lead to dictatorship.

And suppressing democracy is the best way not to lead to Dictatorship? Economic problems, an epidemic, or oppression are also other ways that can lead to popularism. Are you just going to ban them as well?

Our history tells us that despite protest will be peaceful this will not always be the case and that this may lead to bloody revolutions in certain nations.


{{ 3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.}}

Which means this proposal can’t be used to support a bloody revolution, and the government has every right to protect itself.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

It sounds like a wonderfull idea
I would accept the proposal, if I could find the poll to vote on, if there is one.
You must be a World Assembly member to vote on Resolutions. Go to the World Assembly page (http://www.nationstates.net/90683/page=un) and click the 'apply' button. Remember that you can only have one nation in the World Assembly at any time.

Richard had not come as prepared as some of the other members of the festering snakepit, he was searching for something he could use to bribe the unwholesome senator. He thought of looking for the deputy ambassador, Fiore Acquerello who would know where some bottles would be. She hadn’t been seen for a while now. “Probably being sacrificed by the gnomes on an altar to the Thessadorian Ambassador. Again.” He thought to himself and determined he would look for her later.

He finally uncovered a few bottles of Piso Mojado Tequila from the Cookeslandic state of Altaflora. It had been a gift from a friend of his. He walked over to the closed bar otherwise known as the Palentine delegation’s desk and placed the bottle’s on the table.

“A gift from the Cookeslandic Delegation in hopes you decide to cast your vote FOR our resolution.”

"Also I wish to thank the Urgenchi khan for his generous offer. While I prefer Fine Yeldan Vodka(TM), the Urgenchi stuff comes in at a close second. I will keep the offer in consideration. Now anybody else?"


Very well, if Vodka will not do, revered Senator Sulla, how about 40 cases of the finest barrel aged Slivovitz from Hungary, it is from the Imperial household's cellar and is of the most surpassing quality and exquisite flavour ?


Yours e.t.c.

We'll give you exclusive access to Antigone Morgan's early porno movies if you vote yes, Senator Sulla.

- Jimmy Baca

Surely honoured Ambassador, property which is state owned is in fact the property of the people ? Therefore they cannot possibly be tresspassing on such land.
Perhaps the maxim of the state being "man writ large" is not applied in your state? The right of the people to express discontent with their government- the state composed by and for them- is sacrosanct. Why, just a few months back our government was deadlocked by thousands of protesters calling for dissolution of parliament! We certainly didn't arrest them for trespassing, considering every citizen has the right to enter public land.

At least, that's the way it works in Snefaldia. It would think that philosophically, if you adhere to the democratic concept of government composed formed by mandate of the people, such federal/state/government/public/national lands belong directly to the people.

N.T.
etc.


Certainly that land is (under current legal rules) collectively the property of our nation's entire population, although -- to answer one point raised by the Snefaldain ambassador -- we of course prefer to say "bear writ large" rather than "man writ large"; and, before anybody questions the point, our national government certainly allows a reasonable number of spectators to attend its meetings... except when certain matters of national security are under discussion, of course. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the legislature could not function properly if hostile factions were allowed to import mobs of their own supporters as 'demonstrators' to make such a hubbub that the legislature's members could not even hear each other talk properly ... and such occurrences did occur here a few times before our current system, of numbered seating tickets that must be applied for in advance, was introduced.
And can you really not see that the operational efficiency of a military or naval base would be severely handicapped by the presence of a crowd of protesters wandering round and getting in the way, even without the possibility of spies or even saboteurs sneaking in amongst those crowds more well-meaning members?!?
(OOC: Seriously, can you show me even one RL nation that allows its people unlimited access to military & naval bases?)

For that matter, in many nations the residences of the heads of state and heads of government are also 'public property' and so this proposal would apparently allow demonstrators unlimited access to those premises too.
How do you think that -- to pick a possible example -- President Fernando of Omigodtheykilledkenny would feel about having to allow members of the organisation called (I think...) 'KOP-A-FEEL' to enter his very bed-chamber to protest about his lifestyle? Would the Kennyites' own ambassador here care to respond to this question, and explain what solution to this potential problem his government has found?


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the legislature could not function properly if hostile factions were allowed to import mobs of their own supporters as 'demonstrators' to make such a hubbub that the legislature's members could not even hear each other talk properly ... and such occurrences did occur here a few times before our current system, of numbered seating tickets that must be applied for in advance, was introduced.
I don't think this Resolution can be seen as overriding local building safety codes or fire codes pertaining to building occupancy. So the "mobs" would have to be very small, depending on the capacity of the building housing your legislature. An overly large "mob" would constitute "circumstances beyond the control of the Government (which) threaten the safety of those organizing".
And can you really not see that the operational efficiency of a military or naval base would be severely handicapped by the presence of a crowd of protesters wandering round and getting in the way, even without the possibility of spies or even saboteurs sneaking in amongst those crowds more well-meaning members?!?
Military and naval bases are inherently dangerous places. Certain areas could be set aside for legal protests and the rest closed off to the public for safety reasons "beyond the control of the Government".

There are ways to limit areas where protests can legally take place without violating the spirit of the legislation. The same can apply to residences of heads of state and government.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Ambassador o Redwood,

It is true that governments, corporations, and respective authority can infringe on the right to protest, but that doesn’t mean that the respective authorities have to allow them to do so wherever they please. They still have to follow the proper respective legal processes for their protest. For example, if a town says that all protests must be planned 30 days in advance and only in the park; and, a group protests in front of city hall without any planning or proper notification, the town has every right to break up the protest and is not in violation of this resolution. Does that clear anything up?

Richard York
WA Ambassador

You say that doing so would not be an illegal infringement of the rights that this proposal seeks to guarantee? Hr'rrm, that's not how it looked to me, but it's your nation's proposal and maybe there's some difference in how our two nations use the English language...
So, would a despotic regime be in full compliance with this proposal's terms if it said that all protests would require ten years advance notice, a petition bearing the signatures of at least ten million people (and/or of everybody who was going to attend them), and/or the payment of very large fee to the government... and perhaps that they could only be held in one particular basement room, or had to be held out of doors in a thunderstorm? I don't see any clause that limits the imposition of such restrictions, if the imposition of any restrictions at all would be legally possible as you're now saying...

So, would a despotic regime be in full compliance with this proposal's terms if it said that all protests would require ten years advance notice, a petition bearing the signatures of at least ten million people (and/or of everybody who was going to attend them), and/or the payment of very large fee to the government... and perhaps that they could only be held in one particular basement room, or had to be held out of doors in a thunderstorm? I don't see any clause that limits the imposition of such restrictions, if the imposition of any restrictions at all would be legally possible as you're now saying...
I don't want to speak for the government of Cookesland but in my opinion that would be an unreasonable infringement and would violate the terms of the Resolution.

The key to placing reasonable restrictions on protest is to use the safety provision in Article 2 and the "harm to innocent people" provision in Article 3.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Yes, I's like to retract that previous statement, thank you Ambassador Watts.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

"Our leadership lives in government regulated apartments and use mass transit like everyone else in the major cities. Though these buildings are publicly owned, they are treated like private homes in capitalist countries- you may not protest there, as it would be percieved as a threatening act against a private citizen. This is because it could be construed as stalking, as most people do not know, nor do they care where the Directors lay their heads at night. So that concern of the Kennyites and Bears Armed is not a concern for us. As for protesting the legislature- which city, which building? Besides we already deal with those sorts of problems amongst the legislators as riots do sometimes happen on the (multiple) Senate or Assembly floors. Our solution- thousands of riot police and hundreds of thousands of soldiers to protect legislators from each other! But that's life in Korintar for you, the news is a major source of entertainment for people (rated MA-21, SDLV, if footage and eyewitness accounts are shown, heh, heh!). Sulla, we are a relatively dry country, but we make high quality Xylni-Mabtua, 185 proof liquor, we will send you a case of 12, 2 litre bottles. It is a very sweet drink from what I've been told. I was also informed that drinking just four oz. was enough to make you very drunk for the rest of the day. It should be good enough encouragement for you to vote FOR, or to forget you even voted on the past seven resolutions!" ;)
- Korintari delegation

We'll give you exclusive access to Antigone Morgan's early porno movies if you vote yes, Senator Sulla.

- Jimmy Baca

Ah Jimmy what a fine lad ye be! A man after my own heart. I didn't know the VP had it in her bless her heart. That seems like a fair offer, and one that I fear is hard to top. The Palentine vote is most definitely in the For column. However, my fellow denizens of the Festering Snakepit....err...WA General Assembly there is still time for the opposition to muster up something better than Antigone Morgan doing the nasty....doubtful....but in an infinite universe anything is possible. So give it the old college try folks.
<whistles the Notre Dame fight song>

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Whoa, all I wanted here was a resolution to allow freedom of assembly: what is bribery got to do with this?

Whoa, all I wanted here was a resolution to allow freedom of assembly: what is bribery got to do with this?

Senator sulla gives the rep from Charlotte Ryberg an unwholesome leer, before answering,

"And I thought you've been around long enought to fully understand the workings of my delegation. I guess I should give you one of these (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Horatio_Sulla) as well. pay attention to the last line of the politics section, my dear."
<Hands the rep a dossier>

"No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights."

Fine, I'll have a mercenary group take them out who is formally "unaffiliated" with the government or a political or social group. But I say let them meet, bigger targets are easier to hit. And weapons testing can so easily be rescheduled and relocated...:mp5:

"No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights."

Fine, I'll have a mercenary group take them out who is formally "unaffiliated" with the government or a political or social group. But I say let them meet, bigger targets are easier to hit. And weapons testing can so easily be rescheduled and relocated..

They don't have to be affiliated with one, because they are one. As such, they are subject clause two.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

Rutianas is pleased to see that the WA is taking on such an important right for individuals. We recently passed legislation in our Republic to allow for the freedom of peaceful assembly and it has worked quite well for us. We applaud this piece of legislation and formally lodge our vote in favor of the resolution.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Freedom of assembly has been a component to our principle of all-out right of free will. That's why some of our neighbours mistaken us as an "Anarchy"!

Don't let Democracy in the back door
Vote NO!!

Don't let Democracy in yhe back door
Vote NO!!!!:mad:

Don't let Democracy in yhe back door
Vote NO!!!!:mad:

I'm detecting large amounts of irony in this statement.

If the honoured ambassador is so concerned about the evils of Democracy may I suggest he forfeit his democractic vote in the WA.

Mikitivity will be voting in favor as soon as our expired World Assembly membership is reprocessed.

Having been away for months, I'm surprised to see WA resolution totals barely reaching 4,000, compared to the 10,000 only months ago we could expect.

Howie T. Katzman

Corrupted Politics is in a...um, well, Nazi region and they are determined to derail this resolution. one word: FAIL! :))

The government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the esteemed and respected delegation of the United States of Cookesland on their resounding victory.

Yours e.t.c. ,

As would the Papal Kingdom of Sanctaria who voted for the Resolution with great happiness.

May God be with you all.

The Rogue Nation of The Deadly Irish would like to voice its disgust and disbelief at the passing of this legislation. We would also like to comment that we are already drafting a counter legislation to combat this.


"I gcróilí an bháis!"

You mean a repeal, don't you?

Because now that this has been adopted, contradictory legislation cannot be passed...not even in your own legislature, if that's what you mean.

Don't like it? Hit the "resign" button.

I am most pleased with the passing of this resolution. Bring on the protests!

Well done, Ambassador York. There'll be a fine queue of people waiting to buy you drinks in the bar, I'll bet.

Thank you so much to all who helped with writing, advice, and support this proposal. [oOc: Special thanks to New Leichestershire, Kenny, Urgench, Palentine, and Flib.] Now let's ajourn to the bar, all drinks on me!

Richard York
WA Ambassador

You mean a repeal, don't you?

Because now that this has been adopted, contradictory legislation cannot be passed...not even in your own legislature, if that's what you mean.

Don't like it? Hit the "resign" button.


I'll hit something! Don't worry about that.


"I gcróilí an bháis!"

Nigel places his briefcase on the small desk in the corner of the closet he is given as and office. Let's see what have I missed, ah York got a solid resolution through, must send him a bottle of wine, and the normal hemming and hawing and threats to appeal and to leave from those who didn't get there way... ah... another day another diplomatic tussle.

What's next?

Now let's ajourn to the bar, all drinks on me!

Cerys solemnly walks over to Richard York, and upends a half-pint of lager over him. :)