That still leaves too much room for interpretation (namely, quibbling over the definitions of "encrypt" or "end-to-end").
People have a right to encrypt their communication, end-to-end with their intended participants, such that no one other than their intended participants can decrypt any aspect of their communication.
I agree. Your expanded definition is better. Now let's flesh it out into a full-fledged proposal, put it up on a website and disseminate it among the people. Let's get it into the parliaments as something that the parliament members have to discuss and finally either accept or reject.
I'm all for it, but I don't think posting it on a website is going to suffice. Get the EFF behind it, get others experienced with lobbying behind it, then it might get some momentum.
People have a right to encrypt their communication, end-to-end with their intended participants, such that no one other than their intended participants can decrypt any aspect of their communication.