Freedom of Assembly

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
#179: Freedom of Assembly

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Proposed By: Mikitivity
Strength: Mild
Status: Passed
Adopted: 2006.10.05
Votes For: 9,338
Votes Against: 4,153


Freedom of Assembly is the fifth resolution sponsored by Mikitivity and the 14th Furtherment of Democracy resolution to be adopted by the United Nations. Though the resolution is 18th resolution sponsored by a member nation of the International Democratic Union, it was the region's first Furtherment of Democracy resolution. The resolution extended article 3 of the Universal Bill of Rights to further define that citizens of nations should have the legal right to peacefully assemble and organize political parties on the condition that these organizations are not actively promoting violence. The resolution was adopted by a supermajority vote in early October 2006.

Resolution history

Draft proposal

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

Telegram campaign

The Freedom of Assembly proposal was first submitted to the proposal queue in mid-August 2006. The proposal did not go through any significant changes. Twice, its sponsoring nation, Mikitivity, carpetted hundreds of UN Delegates with telegrams seeking support. After 7 submissions to the proposal queue, the proposal established quorum on Mon Sep 25 2006. Prior to reaching the UN Floor, the proposal recieved over 200 UN Delegate approvals. However, the proposal sat in the resolution queue for several extras while the Outlaw Necrophilia resolution was being debated.

UN floor debate

The resolution reached the UN floor on Sep. 30, 2006 and was characterized by a small debate between a few nations. Ambassador Howie Katzman of Mikitivity first introduced the background materials including transcripts of the draft proposal discussions and text of the Universal Bill of Rights in his opening address to the United Nations. In its first day on the UN floor, a number of nations, including Ariddia, Ceorana, Karmicaria, and Norderia, immediately spoke in favour of the resolution. By the second day, a number of dictatorships began to speak out in opposition to the resolution on grounds that it promoted political freedoms. Lord Kenneth Fowl of Risban asserted that freedom of assembly would lead to riots and in extreme cases outright rebellion. The early division of democratic governments immediately voting in favour and dictatorships voting against characterized the entire 5-day debate.

On the second day of debate, Ambassador Katzman and Deputy Ambassador Cassandra Thonberger both presented a formal opening speech in support of the resolution. Katzman focused on the international justification for such a resolution, citing that disenfranchisement frequently leads to expatriotism and the formation of violent opposition groups that would actively seek radical changes in their home nations. The ambassador argued that by increasing the political freedoms of citizens by allowing the formation of legal, but peaceful opposition parties, that terrorist organizations would have a harder time at recruitment. However, he warned that by not allowing freedom of assembly, that these groups would not only gain domestic support, but would also move their operations to neighboring nations and in doing so would threaten regional peace and security.[1], [2]

Thonberger took a different approach and cited Mikitivity's historical experience with domestic terrorism as their justification for promoting the resolution. She pointed to the conflict between Miervatia and Aslan cantons in the 18th century, focusing on a terrorist group known as the Aslan Faction.[3]

Not all dictatorships were opposed to the resolution, Ambassador Oskar Feldstein of Kivisto spoke in favour of the resolution addressing numerous questions and complaints raised by other dictatorships. He pointed out, "Public assembly and democracy do not go hand in hand. I'm certain the religious Wenaists of Gruenberg assemble on regular occassions for any number of reasons." [4]

Not all democracies supported the resolution. Ambassador oasyourto of Errinundera argued that private property had no inherent rights in a democracy. To prohibit, or at the very least, discourage justifiable riotous behaviour was, in fact, a restriction on the freedom of assembly. She quoted her Protector of Foreign Affairs, iveitu: "Errinundrians hold dear their right to destroy misbehaving corporations." [5] This argument received little support from other democracies.

Resolution text

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #179
Freedom of Assembly
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

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

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,


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


TAKING NOTE of article 3 of its resolution The Universal Bill of Rights, which grants individuals the right to peacefully assemble,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Votes For: 9,338
Votes Against: 4,153
Implemented: Thu Oct 5 2006

Voting analysis

A poll was attached to the UN Floor Debate thread, asking UN Delegates, UN Members, and Non-UN Members if they supported, opposed, or were indifferent to the resolution. This poll was the first time that a UN forum poll also allowed Non-UN Members a more formal way to have their support or opposition to a UN resolution registered with the organization.

Although the resolution was adopted by a supermajority by the overall UN vote, support for the resolution dropped from 69% in favour overall to 57% in favour in the UN forum debates (Fig. 1). Unlike the distribution of votes for the Clothing Supply Pact, where UN members showed strong support for the resolution, while UN delegates opposed the resolution, the support for this resolution amongst UN members and UN delegates participating in the UN debates was similar (Fig. 2).[6] This suggests that some other difference in the voting behavior of nations in the UN debates might account for the differences between the overall UN vote and the UN forum poll.

<div" class="plainlinksneverexpand">Res179a.gif
</div>
<div" class="plainlinksneverexpand">Res179c.gif
</div>

The official poll attached to the UN forum debate was a public vote, thus UNA-Mikitivity analyzed the results after the closing of the poll. For its analysis, the NGO divided nations into four categories based on the length of time (measured in months) that they have been active on the Jolt forums. Newer nations were considered to be nations that have only been participating in international discussions within the past 3 months of the close of the poll. For example, a nation that first started posting on Jolt in August 2006 was categorized as 0-3 months active. Moderated aged nations were considered to be nations that have been active longer than 3 months, but within the previous year. Thus a nation that first joined Jolt in December 2005 would fall into this second category. Nations that have been participating in Jolt discussions for over a year were divided into two categories: 12-24 months of activity and over 24 months of activity.

Of all of the nations, including UN members, UN delegates, and non-UN members, that voted in favour of the resolution on the UN forum poll, the distribution of nations based on the length of their activity on Jolt was relatively uniform, with 31% of the support coming from new nations, 27% from mid-ranged nations, 18% from the long-ranged nations, and 24% from nations that have been participating on Jolt for several years. However, the distribution of votes cast against the resolution relative to length time nations have been participating on Jolt was extremely skewed. UNA-Mikitivity found that the largest bloc of nations voting against the resolution on the UN forum came from nations that had only just started participating in uni-lateral debates.

<div" class="plainlinksneverexpand">Res179b.gif
</div>

Gameplay impacts

This mild strength resolution had no significant impacts on the way NationStates was played. Though several newer nations made note of government crackdowns on opposition parties, there were no significant roleplayed international incidents immediately following the adoption of this resolution.[7]

Additional materials