by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics




by The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation. . 10 reads.

GA Recommendation Archive: Opinions on 'Freedom of Association' | OWL


'Freedom of Association'

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Freedom of Association'
Author: Boston Castle
Purpose: To ensure that individuals can freely associate with any law-abiding organization without consequence.


.No Recommendation.

The Office's Analysis

Arguably one of the most basic pillars of democracy, the freedom to associate with organizations of an individual's choosing is sought to be internationally recognized by the at-vote resolution, "Freedom of Association". While doubtlessly of commendable intent, some concerns have been voiced regarding the exceptions to the general freedom of association that are listed in clause 1b, e.g. the exclusion of associations spreading messages of hate or undermining national security, which in their vagueness might open up unwanted loopholes allowing governments to effectively still outlaw associating with organizations unfavorable to them. However, no side could win a majority over these issues during internal voting. Thus, OWL doesn't recommend a specific vote on the at-vote resolution, "Freedom of Association".

Supplementary Opinions


From TSP Citizens

At the time of writing, OWL had not found a solid opinion for the resolution from TSP citizens. You can make your own opinion heard by posting it on the Regional Message Board of the WA Voting Center!

From the World

Simone Republic is a Citizen of The North Pacific. They stated on TNP's forums:

Simone Republic wrote:For. The clause on national security gives me comfort that this would not be abused.

Magiclands is a resident of the Pacific. On the NS forums, they posted:

Magiclands wrote:We recommend all nations vote For because of the merits of this proposal and how it improves free rights.


From TSP Citizens

Lucabaduka (Refuge Isle) is the Founder of Refugia and a member of OWL junior staff.

Lucabaduka wrote:What little the resolution accomplishes is undone by itself. If there is a concern that governments may not allow their citizens to associate, such that it requires intervention by the World Assembly, for what reason is it also then prudent to empower those governments to criminalise citizens' association with it? What is the functional difference in effect between the two? It is problematic that the determination of what counts as a threat to "national security", what can be considered the "intention to spread a message of hate", are placed on governments. Governments are restricted from prohibiting association, but only so long as they do not invoke any of these easily-reachable exceptions which cause that association to land someone in prison. In the end, nothing is accomplished at all.

From the World

Shamian is the Chief Justice of the People's Tribunal and Vice Delegate of The Communist Bloc. On TCB's forums, they argued:

Shamian wrote:That's a hard NAY from me;

The wording in section 1b is so vague as to allow a government to outlaw pretty much anything it likes - defeating the whole idea that this law is supposedly based on, and protecting no freedoms whatsoever.