Overview Proposal: “Repeal: Freedom of Assembly” aims to repeal GAR#27 for allowing loop holes such as criminals having the right to evade incarceration through the freedom of assembly and not being detailed and comprehensive enough. Opinions: For: wrote: Ovindien By the looks of it, the resolution it wants to repeal had multiple loopholes that could've been or has been abused, undermining it's original purpose and creating undue unrest among the general public, not to mention other complications that could've arisen during this time. By repealing this, it would make way for a better and more extensive resolution (that is at works right now and will be ready to replace GAR #27 as soon as possible) that leaves no further loopholes to exploit.
With these factors in mind, I vote in favor of the proposal.
wrote: Tepertopia he proposal makes a strong case for repealing the original resolution, and with replacement proposals already extensively drafted and ready for the WA to consider after passing this repeal, I currently don't see a reason why the WA shouldn't replace a flawed and dusty old resolution with a newer one better suited for safeguarding the crucial right to assemble freely and peacefully while still protecting the general public from violent riots exercised in the name of this right. wrote: Lotrisia While the Commonwealth of Lotrisia applauds the democratic ideals behind the original resolution of "Freedom of Assembly", the points raised by the repeal proposal are salient and undermine the aims of the original resolution. As such, the Commonwealth will vote to repeal, provided the original is swiftly replaced by a better-written proposal that guarantees the same basic rights in better detail. Against: wrote: Refuge Isle In short, I don't think that there are "glaring flaws" presented in this repeal, so much as nitpicks of fairly uncontroversial legislation. It's my interpretation that the target is being selected because it is old and not necessarily because it is problematic. I have no interest in restricting freedom of assembly in the manner which is being aspired to in this repeal and its related replacement. The repeal is hinged on the idea that freedom to assemble somehow equates to the freedom of movement. It does not.
I don't agree with the interpretation that somehow someone from inside a jail cell can make a case that they be released in order to participate in some protest and then run off into the night. There can be a fantasy story about any number of edge cases and have all of them can be just as bizarre as this, and it doesn't make any of them necessarily plausible.
My vote's against.
wrote: Castle Federation I understand the sentiment, but I feel that written law will always be able to be interpreted in a way that was against its original intent. There could be fifty paragraphs to specifically define harm and yet even then it is a finite definition that someone could find a way to bend if they tried hard enough. I want to recognize the positive intention of the authors as well as the amount of work that went into this proposal, but I can not bring myself to repeal such a fundamental resolution with the arguments presented. wrote: Golexald Against. The repeal is too nitpicky of the resolution it is attempting to repeal. I believe the aforementioned resolution is fine as is and covers suitable ground.