A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Civil Rights
Proposed by: Boston Castle
The World Assembly,
Cognizant of the many foundational freedoms previously guaranteed by this Assembly such as freedom of the press and freedom of assembly,
Recognizing that while these fundamental freedoms are guaranteed that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of affiliation that is not,
Believing that no nation should enact criminal penalties for affiliating with an organisation not involved in the commission of a crime, hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:
1. Governments must allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing.
a. Freedom of association with an organisation is subject to the organisation in question allowing such association.
b. An organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it actively undermines national security, directs its members to violate national criminal law, includes the commission of crimes among its goals or activities, or spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group.
This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE
Last Edit: Apr 13, 2021 13:30:40 GMT -5 by Wischland
TITO Tactical Officer Former Senior Senator for Blue Canaria North 118th Knight of TITO Crazy Cat Lady Extraordinaire
Post by Jabberwocky on Apr 13, 2021 20:41:59 GMT -5
Far too vague, far from comprehensive. Against
106th Knight of TITO Steward, House of Louisistan Order of The Islands Former Senior Senator of New Republica South Editor-in-Chief of The Mad Surfer Emissary to European Union, Capitalist Paradise Member XKIFTA/PEP/LUAC/IITP MP South Dingo Island
Post by Free Las Pinas on Apr 13, 2021 21:02:21 GMT -5
Freedom of association is beneficial for democracy, giving more opportunities for political organization. However, I'm going to have to vote against this particular resolution as I feel that it is a weak implementation of the idea. The only clause that has a positive outcome is clause 1. Clauses a and b, on the other hand, have loopholes that can be easily abused due to vagueness.
Clause 1a seems well-intentioned, but may empower transphobic groups, for instance, to exclude transgender men and women in organizations/groups/clubs that are very much meant for their respective genders. To elaborate, an organization may claim to be exclusive to women, but exclude transgender women on the basis that "you're not a woman!!!". Like... no.
Clause 1b is worded too vaguely. What is a threat to national security? What counts as intentions "to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group"? Does this not empower governments to crack down on political dissidents and potentially punishing whistleblowers/anyone that in some way offends the government? What if the government criminalizes protest in some form?
If I misunderstood something, or there is already a resolution that somehow covered these problems, please feel free to tell me. I could be maybe a bit out of it