[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[Quite Finite Wisdom]

OOC: Please excuse me if my answer is not appropriate in some way, I am quite new to this.

IC:
Although it is my firm belief that freedom of thought should be protected, and although freedom of religion is indisputably a part of it - in particular the right of not having a religion - it is quite clear that nations ought to be able to curb the worst excess of a religion.

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break the laws of the member state, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other sapient beings,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other sapient beings or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

This clause explicitely forbid nations from outlawing any religious practice if it is not already forbidden by WA legislation, thereby depriving sovereign states from exercing any kind of control on religious movements, including such as cults. If one of those was to declare it a major tenant of faith to not go to public school but only to religious school, any state willing to protect children's education would be breaking international law.
I trust you can see the problem here. I thus call for the retraction of this clause if this motion is to pass at all, which is my wish.

[Calladan]

OOC: Please excuse me if my answer is not appropriate in some way, I am quite new to this.

IC:
Although it is my firm belief that freedom of thought should be protected, and although freedom of religion is indisputably a part of it - in particular the right of not having a religion - it is quite clear that nations ought to be able to curb the worst excess of a religion.

REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that otherwise break the laws of the member state, unless such rituals:

cause harm to other sapient beings,
cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,
cause damage to the property of other sapient beings or organisations without their consent, or
contradict extant WA legislation,

This clause explicitely forbid nations from outlawing any religious practice if it is not already forbidden by WA legislation, thereby depriving sovereign states from exercing any kind of control on religious movements, including such as cults. If one of those was to declare it a major tenant of faith to not go to public school but only to religious school, any state willing to protect children's education would be breaking international law.
I trust you can see the problem here. I thus call for the retraction of this clause if this motion is to pass at all, which is my wish.

Greetings, and welcome,

You could make the argument that there is a difference between religious practice and religious rituals.

The first being (for example) the wearing of certain clothes, or of specific headdresses, while the second is drinking the blood and eating the flesh of the person they believe saved them from eternal damnation (which seems a bit of a mean thing to do to someone who did something so nice for you, but *shrug* to each his own).

I would argue that not attending school is not, by any definition, a ritual in that sense of the word, and so does not fall under Clause 6. I can't, off the top of my head, remember if it would fall foul of any other clauses, but I don't see any issue with this particular one.

Calladan (the nation it is my honour to represent) requires children to attend school, and we will continue to insist on this even if/when this proposal passes, and can see no reason why it should prevent that.

[Quite Finite Wisdom]

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

Going to religious school 8 hours a day six times a week being an act that can be required by a religious belief, it does answer the definition given, which is quite broad.

My apologies, though. My point stands moot since you also defines a request as a recommandation (and thus, I trust, not legally binding?).

[Tahkranul]

DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act which is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,

Going to religious school 8 hours a day six times a week being an act that can be required by a religious belief, it does answer the definition given, which is quite broad.

My apologies, though. My point stands moot since you also defines a request as a recommandation (and thus, I trust, not legally binding?).

OOC: Requests are not legally binding mandates. Seriously, EP, stop trolling.

[Draconae]

Going to religious school 8 hours a day six times a week being an act that can be required by a religious belief, it does answer the definition given, which is quite broad.

My apologies, though. My point stands moot since you also defines a request as a recommandation (and thus, I trust, not legally binding?).

OOC: Requests are not legally binding mandates. Seriously, EP, stop trolling.

OOC: Tahkranul, both EP and Quite Finite Wisdom are in the World Assembly. Have you considered that QFW could be someone different?

IC: "Yes, you are correct. Recommendations (and requests, at least normally) are not legally binding."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Personally, I think that the title is unambiguous, neutral and straightforward. Perhaps you have a suggestion for a better alternative?

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

"How would you feel about simply switching the words around and make it "Religious Freedoms", or possibly "Religious Rights"? We admit that is not an ideal solution either, but at least it emphasizes the freedoms - or rights - of the individuals, rather than those of religions."

Neville: I'm not a big fan. I think that the current title gets right to the point.

Neville: I don't see how you could argue that a belief isn't ideological.
*snip*
Neville: I'd argue that if it doesn't aim for spiritual enlightenment, it counts as a philosophy. In addition to that, I'm not defining a belief as a belief. Redundant definitions are too redundant and I want this non-redundant proposal to refrain from being redundant.

"The same way you yourself disqualify a religion that does not conform to your own "belief" of what counts as a religion, despite not defining a religion in the proposal.

Neville: Read Clause One. It's been there since the first draft.

Either all philosophies - or ideologies, including political ones - count as religions as per your definition of "religious belief", or religions that do not aim for spiritual enlightenment should also count as religions. Many sapients follow certain political ideologies with the surety that should all espouse their ideology, the world would be a better place with "enlightened people". Would that make it a religion for you?"

Neville: That depends. Does it dictate behaviours, practices and morals?

OOC: Also, unless you can give me an example of a religion that doesn't aim for spiritual enlightenment either in the GA forum or in real life, the definition is staying. Sorry.

Neville: If they have no conviction in what they do, why should the World Assembly protect their right to do it?

OOC: I hate dropping into OOC in middle of a PPU post, but I'm going to have to use Finland as an example, because ours is the only culture I know well enough. The majority of Finns (73% as of year 2015) belong into the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, but only about 2% of them attend church services weekly. The average number of church visits per year of all church members is approximately two, which means that most church members don't go there at all (except for things like baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals). Only about a third of all Finns believe in a god. Unlike places like USA, religious holidays are free days for all, nevermind their religion or the lack of it. Religious education is mandatory in schools, and the vast majority of students, irrespective of their religion, attend the Lutheran religious education.

I'm an atheist and yet I belong to the church. Why? Tradition. The same holds true for most Lutherans in Finland. By your argument, most of us wouldn't be allowed to use religion as an excuse to do or not do something, because we're not "true believers". Unless people belonging to a religion tell you otherwise, how are you going to know if they have conviction or not?

OOC: You make a fair point, but I'd argue that in this particular case, it's more of a cultural tradition than a religious one.

"We find nothing funny in pedantic dictionary wars."

Neville: Humour is subjective, Ambassador.

"We were not talking to you, but rather to your more intelligent proposal writer."

Fairburn: I am the Ambassador. I have every right to participate in diplomatic discussion, and I have every right to forbid Neville from doing the same. Just saying.

"Perhaps we did not communicate our thoughts well enough: your clause 7 is repetitious of clause 6, or vice versa. You do not need both.

Neville: Perhaps, maybe, you yourself can explain, or elaborate, if you will, how the two clauses, clauses six and seven, are repetitious, redundant or even repetitious.

And examples of why clause 7 might not be good, include laws against hate speech or libel or encouraging others to violence. And please do not say "no real religion" would do that."

Neville: GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression makes no exception for "hate speech", so I'd assume that member states wouldn't be able to implement hate speech laws unless they only covered the exceptions allowed by the resolution. Also, the use of the word 'harm' may already cover that complaint, but I'm not 100% sure.

"And you continue to demonstrate why sapients do not want to talk with you."

Fairburn: Either say something to counter my argument or don't say anything at all.

"What is a belief to a single supernatural entity but a "cult of personality"? Or is a religion not a cult only if the creature you want to deify cannot be seen and can thus only be belived in? We are fairly sure that there are various nations around here that have actual and factual gods. Just because you do not believe that their god is a god, does not make it any less a god."

Neville: Even if you wish to count a religion as a cult of personality, it still can't be shoved down people's throats. Why, then, should we give unambiguous and indisputable cults of personality license to start shoving 'glorious leader' nonsense into people's faces?

"And then gives extra freedoms to those that belong into what you see as a "real enough" religion. How is that not discrimination?"

Neville: The proposal itself doesn't give any "extra freedoms". It merely allows nations, if they're so inclined, to give their religious citizens "extra freedoms". They're still bound by existing WA legislation, of course.

"This is the first truth you have uttered so far."

Fairburn: Oh, how hilarious. I think my sides have split. Please, provide us with more of your marvellous wit.

OOC: I'm not kidding when I say that the rhyme was completely unintentional.

OOC: Also, who's missus Barbera?

OOC: She was originally an attempt to continue responding IC to EP after both Neville and Fairburn started a boycott. If I have time, I'll dig through my post history to locate her first appearance.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Requests are not legally binding mandates. Seriously, EP, stop trolling.

Let's not trollname please. It's against the rules. Thank you.

[Araraukar]

Neville: GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression makes no exception for "hate speech"

OOC: Actually, it does:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials

[Implacable Death]

I reject this. Freedom of religion does not factor in atheism.

[Araraukar]

I reject this. Freedom of religion does not factor in atheism.

The author claims it does, but then he gives people belonging to religions he deems "real enough" extra rights, as well as dismisses people who do belong to such religions, but who don't really believe, despite not having anything but an individual's word on whether they're a true believer or not.

[Implacable Death]

I reject this. Freedom of religion does not factor in atheism.

The author claims it does, but then he gives people belonging to religions he deems "real enough" extra rights, as well as dismisses people who do belong to such religions, but who don't really believe, despite not having anything but an individual's word on whether they're a true believer or not.

In short, heavily biased and subjective on top of that. More rejection.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression makes no exception for "hate speech"

OOC: Actually, it does:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials

OOC: I'd expect you of all people to quote the rest of my post. Yes, GA #30 has exceptions. However, hate speech IRL is often a broader term than what GA #30 uses. For example, material insulting an individual based on an innate characteristic is sometimes considered hate speech, but as of right now, member states can't ban it. Therefore, 'hate speech' as it is commonly used is not fully covered. Not to mention the fact that I made an argument for why this proposal may already exclude libel and encouragement of violence, even though you didn't quote it for some reason.

I reject this. Freedom of religion does not factor in atheism.

Neville: I'd love to hear how Clause Five doesn't factor in atheism.

I reject this. Freedom of religion does not factor in atheism.

The author claims it does, but then he gives people belonging to religions he deems "real enough" extra rights

Neville: If you have an alternative suggestion for the definition of a religious belief, please feel free to provide it.

as well as dismisses people who do belong to such religions, but who don't really believe, despite not having anything but an individual's word on whether they're a true believer or not.

Neville: Let me get this straight. If someone performs a religious ritual for purely cultural reasons with no religious motive whatsoever, you want this proposal to protect their right to do so. While I agree with you from a civil rights standpoint, I'm not sure how you expect me to include this without making this proposal far too bulky.

Also, I categorically deny these unsubstantiated and ridiculous accusations that I am in any way biased in my drafting this proposal. If Ambassador Leveret would like to lodge a formal complaint, the contact details are conveniently provided on our official website. Here is our ultimatum: either pursue this issue through the proper pathway or refrain from making paranoid allegations about our delegation.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'd expect you of all people to quote the rest of my post.

OOC: I'll get back to your replies in detail when I get back to it on PPU. Just thought I'd point out that your claim "GA #30 forbids it" wasn't true. And despite how you want to define hate speech, a reasonable reading of GA #30 allows banning and criminalizing it.

Also, I categorically deny these unsubstantiated and ridiculous accusations that I am in any way biased in my drafting this proposal. If Ambassador Leveret would like to lodge a formal complaint, the contact details are conveniently provided on our official website. Here is our ultimatum: either pursue this issue through the proper pathway or refrain from making paranoid allegations about our delegation.

OOC: I haven't slept since Monday morning (and it's about 1:45 am Wednesday right now). When I can, I'll get back to this and explain in details what I mean, if others haven't managed it by then. Believe me, you want me well-rested when enganging in RP. Just ask Tinfect what TG madness can follow from sleeplessness.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'd expect you of all people to quote the rest of my post.

OOC: And despite how you want to define hate speech

OOC: And how RL countries want to define hate speech, not that they matter, of course...

[Excidium Planetis]

A visible change happens in the speaker plant; its mobility vines, which normally push it along the floor, rise up to its sides, coiling up, and all the leaves that normally lie against its trunk, fluff out, so that the pitcher it uses as a lung, becomes visible. Its voice also becomes more like that of a human, losing a lot of the usual hiss.¹

"Ambassador Blackbourne, perhaps Madame Schultz has failed to inform you of my origins, but the only sapient death that can be blamed on any of my individual plants, was done by my non-sapient predecessor, and was most likely the event that bootstrapped the development into full sapience. I have no memory of it and blaming me for that action would be akin to blaming you for whatever your nonsapient ancestors did."

"Apologies, no offense was meant." Blackbourne quickly apologizes to the angry plant. "Certainly not, since eating people for nutritional purposes isn't all that bad anyways. I won't look down on your... non-sapient ancestor... for doing so."

The plant loses none of its intensity, but its voice is kinder as it replies:

"Madame Barbera, the Weapons Nullifiers are not in effect in the individual nations' offices, unless that nation has authorized their use there. The former Araraukarian office, where my predecessor's lethal action took place, did not have them, nor do the rooms, which now serve as my headquarters, now have them in effect, to let me defend my soil. That space is now literally Potted Plants United soil. If you wish to visit me some day, I will be happy to show you. And as long as you enter without any weapons or intentions to harm my individual plants, I am more than happy to guarantee your safety."

The speaker plant subsides into its usual form and goes silent.

"How can you guarantee the safety of visitors without allowing them to carry weapons?"

[Merni]

The plant loses none of its intensity, but its voice is kinder as it replies:

"Madame Barbera, the Weapons Nullifiers are not in effect in the individual nations' offices, unless that nation has authorized their use there. The former Araraukarian office, where my predecessor's lethal action took place, did not have them, nor do the rooms, which now serve as my headquarters, now have them in effect, to let me defend my soil. That space is now literally Potted Plants United soil. If you wish to visit me some day, I will be happy to show you. And as long as you enter without any weapons or intentions to harm my individual plants, I am more than happy to guarantee your safety."

The speaker plant subsides into its usual form and goes silent.

"How can you guarantee the safety of visitors without allowing them to carry weapons?"

OOC: Perhaps by not allowing anyone else to carry weapons? Of course, you can't guarantee safety against natural disasters, but then you can't with weapons either.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Perhaps by not allowing anyone else to carry weapons? Of course, you can't guarantee safety against natural disasters, but then you can't with weapons either.

OOC:
1) the plants are clearly capable of killing people. Weapons would allow visitors to defend themselves from the plants, but being unarmed, you are screwed. Of course, I know PPU would not maliciously kill a sapient being, but Blackbourne does not know this.
2) What if Blackbourne decides to take a gun in without permission, and starts gunning down the other visitors? How will they defend themselves without weapons? Heck, he probably doesn't even need a weapon, he could just walk in wearing an exoskeleton, and just use robotic strength enhancement to beat the crap out of people.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I reject this. Freedom of religion does not factor in atheism.

What part of "MANDATES that member states must also respect an individual's right not to hold a religious belie" do you consider not factoring in atheism?

I should point out as well, as per the definition, "Religious belief" doesn't have to be based on a "god." ... "DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment," No mention of a god there. By the resolution's definition, atheism can have "religious beliefs." Odd, isn't it.

I just love it when people see words in resolutions that aren't there. The word "god" does not appear at all in the proposal. Therefore it is definitely atheist acceptable.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perhaps by not allowing anyone else to carry weapons? Of course, you can't guarantee safety against natural disasters, but then you can't with weapons either.

OOC: 1) the plants are clearly capable of killing people. Weapons would allow visitors to defend themselves from the plants, but being unarmed, you are screwed. Of course, I know PPU would not maliciously kill a sapient being, but Blackbourne does not know this.
2) What if Blackbourne decides to take a gun in without permission, and starts gunning down the other visitors? How will they defend themselves without weapons? Heck, he probably doesn't even need a weapon, he could just walk in wearing an exoskeleton, and just use robotic strength enhancement to beat the crap out of people.

OOC: Doing OOC replies on Araraukar.

1) The plants are capable of killing people. So are people. With or without weapons. What is to stop any ambassador from killing you if you visit their office and it doesn't have the nullifiers enabled? They give their word that you will not be harmed, and probably have laws against murdering sapients, yes? The same applies to PPU. It has just two "laws" of its own (the rest are WA resolutions), and one of them is "Do not kill other sapients unless they seriously threaten your life." So basically a law making murder illegal.

It should be noted that various individual plants and their parts that are meant for consumption (like, say, cooking herbs, fruits), which are parts of the hivemind, are indistinguishable (including genetics) from non-sapient versions, and the hivemind has no issues with them being killed and eaten. It's when you get to the important ones (which are not easily accessible to public) that it gets defensive. Comparison: you're probably ok with your hair being cut (and are likely to do it voluntarily anyway), but most likely not with your arm being amputated, especially without your permission.

2) The airlock leading into the rooms does have weapons nullifiers, and if he brought a weapon, he'd simply be refused entry. There are scanning devices in the airlock. As for simply him attacking other guests unarmed, the hivemind is definitely capable of defending others and itself from such harm - think what the speaker plants can do and multiply by 10.

[Potted Plants United]

A large potted plant in a big plantpot with wheels suddenly comes to life, revealing a large leaf curled up to form a cone, from which a somewhat hissing voice can be heard:

Neville: I'm not a big fan. I think that the current title gets right to the point.

"We feel that any resolution offering freedom of religion should also offer freedom from religion, hence our suggested change."

Neville: Read Clause One. It's been there since the first draft.

"And as you are aware, we disagree with your definition, as it only counts religions that are for "the purposes of spiritual enlightenment". This completely excludes animistic religions and religious worship of ancestors, in which the idea is to ask the spirits for guidance and protection in this life."

Neville: That depends. Does it dictate behaviours, practices and morals?

"We have found that most political organizations do."

Neville: If they have no conviction in what they do, why should the World Assembly protect their right to do it?

"And are you a mindreader, who is able to discern who truly believes and who is just going through the motions?"

OOC: You make a fair point, but I'd argue that in this particular case, it's more of a cultural tradition than a religious one.

OOC: And yet, because the majority of "church cemeteries" are reserved for Lutherans, when I die, if I still belong to the church (or have renewed my membership, if I should cancel it at some point), I will be given preferential treatment over non-Lutherans. The church doesn't count how many times I've been to church, or ask me (or any living relatives) whether I really believed.

Neville: Humour is subjective, Ambassador.

"We have yet to notice anyone else be amused with such pedantry."

Fairburn: I am the Ambassador. I have every right to participate in diplomatic discussion, and I have every right to forbid Neville from doing the same. Just saying.

"If you forbid your resolution-writer interaction with those who offer critique, you truly should not be involved in the process in any manner. Do not worry, though; we do not count your behaviour against your nation."

Neville: Perhaps, maybe, you yourself can explain, or elaborate, if you will, how the two clauses, clauses six and seven, are repetitious, redundant or even repetitious.

"Gladly."

6. REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals
*snip*
7. REQUESTS member states, notwithstanding Clause Six, to refrain from criminalising religious rituals

"As both clauses deal with forbidding the criminalization of religious rituals, and also self-contradict - clause 6 says such rituals must follow the laws, and then clause 7 says they can break the laws - we suggest the wording is compressed to "REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not break the laws of the World Assembly, unless such rituals", since you are throwing the member state's laws out the window except for the special cases listed."

Neville: GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression makes no exception for "hate speech"

"As was pointed out, it does make such an exception. What you are saying is "hate speech the way I define it", which you are allowed to do for your nation, but not claim such is the case for all member nations."

Neville: Even if you wish to count a religion as a cult of personality, it still can't be shoved down people's throats. Why, then, should we give unambiguous and indisputable cults of personality license to start shoving 'glorious leader' nonsense into people's faces?

"We never advocated allowing the "shoving nonsense into people's faces" for any religion. We simply pointed out that the majority of religions with a singular "deity" are essentially the same."

Neville: The proposal itself doesn't give any "extra freedoms". It merely allows nations, if they're so inclined, to give their religious citizens "extra freedoms". They're still bound by existing WA legislation, of course.

"But not to the laws of that particular member nation. It boggles the mind how you do not see this difference. Perhaps an example is needed.

Let us say that there is a religion called Prayerism, which requires all of its members to pray five times a day, for fifteen minutes at a time, while reciting the prayers out loud.

And let us imagine another religion called Slayerism, which requires all of its members to brutally disembowel live animals as part of its ritualistic worship.

Aju is a Prayerist. She is allowed to pray out loud for fifteen minutes in the middle of a movie in a movie theathre, that people have paid for the tickets, interrupting the movie for everyone else. Or in a library, or in the middle of a council or parliamentary meeting, or while performing surgery, or in any other occasion that does not fit your list of exceptions.

Eju is a Slayerist. He is allowed to disregard his nation's laws against animal cruelty, and most likely littering, should he do it in any place other than a place reserved for the action, unless the blood and innards of the animal he slays cause damage to the property. If his religion does not specify an animal he owns, and animals are not considered "property" by his nation's laws, he could slay someone else's pet or livestock as well.

Do you honestly not see a problem with this?"

---

"Apologies, no offense was meant." Blackbourne quickly apologizes to the angry plant. "Certainly not, since eating people for nutritional purposes isn't all that bad anyways. I won't look down on your... non-sapient ancestor... for doing so."

"Likewise we do not look down on you for any atrocities your less enlightened ancestors may have committed."

"How can you guarantee the safety of visitors without allowing them to carry weapons?"

"By not allowing anyone to enter with weaponry. We do not kill sapients without serious threat to our key individuals - and self defence is obviously allowed by your nation, or else you would not be advocating for weapons for everyone."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: I'm not a big fan. I think that the current title gets right to the point.

"We feel that any resolution offering freedom of religion should also offer freedom from religion, hence our suggested change."

Neville: Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion.

Neville: Read Clause One. It's been there since the first draft.

"And as you are aware, we disagree with your definition, as it only counts religions that are for "the purposes of spiritual enlightenment". This completely excludes animistic religions and religious worship of ancestors, in which the idea is to ask the spirits for guidance and protection in this life."

Neville: How does guidance and protection not count as enlightenment?

Neville: That depends. Does it dictate behaviours, practices and morals?

"We have found that most political organizations do."

Neville: So political organisations in your nation tell their members how to live their lives? That's news to me.

Neville: If they have no conviction in what they do, why should the World Assembly protect their right to do it?

"And are you a mindreader, who is able to discern who truly believes and who is just going through the motions?"

Fairburn: Wait, how did all this discussion about "true believers" even start? I don't see how any of it relates to the proposal.

Neville: I'm sure it does relate in some way, but I've completely forgotten what we were arguing about.

OOC: You make a fair point, but I'd argue that in this particular case, it's more of a cultural tradition than a religious one.

OOC: And yet, because the majority of "church cemeteries" are reserved for Lutherans, when I die, if I still belong to the church (or have renewed my membership, if I should cancel it at some point), I will be given preferential treatment over non-Lutherans. The church doesn't count how many times I've been to church, or ask me (or any living relatives) whether I really believed.

OOC: How is this relevant?

Neville: Humour is subjective, Ambassador.

"We have yet to notice anyone else be amused with such pedantry."

Neville: I'm glad to see that you don't consider us to be persons, Ambassador.

Fairburn grows visibly angry.

Fairburn: I am the Ambassador. I have every right to participate in diplomatic discussion, and I have every right to forbid Neville from doing the same. Just saying.

"If you forbid your resolution-writer interaction with those who offer critique, you truly should not be involved in the process in any manner. Do not worry, though; we do not count your behaviour against your nation."

Fairburn: I should not be involved in the process in any manner, you say? I'll be sure to record that statement.

clause 6 says such rituals must follow the laws

Neville: No it doesn't.

and then clause 7 says they can break the laws

Fairburn: Only if the member state wishes it to be so. Isn't national sovereignty amazing, Ambassador? It's too bad that some delegations apparently consider GA #122 to be a violation of national sovereignty.

- we suggest the wording is compressed to "REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that do not break the laws of the World Assembly, unless such rituals", since you are throwing the member state's laws out the window except for the special cases listed."

Fairburn: For Pete's sake, "Ambassador", it's a BLEEDING REQUEST! WHAT PART OF "REQUEST" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?! IS THE CONCEPT OF NON-MANDATORY CLAUSES IN RESOLUTIONS TOO SOPHISTICATED FOR YOU "SAPIENT" PLANTS?! ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A REQUIREMENT AND A REQUEST?! WE ARE NOT "THROWING MEMBER STATES' LAWS OUT THE WINDOW" AND IF YOU REFUSE TO CEASE WITH THESE BLATANT LIES, WE'LL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION!

Neville: GA #30 a.k.a Freedom of Expression makes no exception for "hate speech"

"As was pointed out, it does make such an exception. What you are saying is "hate speech the way I define it", which you are allowed to do for your nation, but not claim such is the case for all member nations."

Neville: Where does Freedom of Expression mention hate speech? If it isn't specifically listed as an exception, member states aren't allowed to restrict it.

Neville: Even if you wish to count a religion as a cult of personality, it still can't be shoved down people's throats. Why, then, should we give unambiguous and indisputable cults of personality license to start shoving 'glorious leader' nonsense into people's faces?

"We never advocated allowing the "shoving nonsense into people's faces" for any religion. We simply pointed out that the majority of religions with a singular "deity" are essentially the same."

Neville: Your point being?

Neville: The proposal itself doesn't give any "extra freedoms". It merely allows nations, if they're so inclined, to give their religious citizens "extra freedoms". They're still bound by existing WA legislation, of course.

But not to the laws of that particular member nation.

Fairburn: Oh, for God's sake, that is it! Your lies end now!

Fairburn grabs a bottle of herbicide and storms out of the hall.

Neville: Um...Fairburn? Where are you going? Fairburn? Oh, great. (to Potted Plants United) Look, they're still bound to the laws of that particular member nation if the government doesn't want to follow the request. If governments do want to exempt religious practices from the law, who are you to say that they can't do so?

Aju is a Prayerist. She is allowed to pray out loud for fifteen minutes in the middle of a movie in a movie theathre, that people have paid for the tickets, interrupting the movie for everyone else.

Neville: Interrupting a movie isn't a crime in most nations. To prosecute Aju but not other interrupters would indeed violate this proposal, but if other interrupters are prosecuted, the member state has every right to prosecute Aju as well.

Or in a library, or in the middle of a council or parliamentary meeting, or while performing surgery, or in any other occasion that does not fit your list of exceptions.

OOC: I'm sorry, but what reasonable nation would allow a surgeon to interrupt themselves during surgery? Also, in the examples of the cinema, the library and the council, it tends to be the establishment itself which intervenes, not the government. In other words, disturbing other people in a cinema, a library or a council is likely to get you kicked out, but it isn't illegal.

Eju is a Slayerist. He is allowed to disregard his nation's laws against animal cruelty

Neville: Only if the member state in question allows him to disregard the laws. Also, Clause Seven mentions "caus[ing] undue suffering to non-sapient living beings", so even if it were a requirement, which it isn't, your point would be moot.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and find Fairburn before he does something stupid. You can talk to Barbera in the meantime. (exits)

[Excidium Planetis]

"By not allowing anyone to enter with weaponry. We do not kill sapients without serious threat to our key individuals - and self defence is obviously allowed by your nation, or else you would not be advocating for weapons for everyone."

Blackbourne responds with hardly any hesitation, giving the practiced response that many Excidians have given to those who advocate gun bans as a way of protecting lives. "But even if you do not allow it, individuals may bring weapons into the restricted area. Even if you completely search them and remove any weapons, they may yet sneak in weapon components and assemble the weapon once inside. As a simple example, a bottle of highly distilled alcohol, a rag, and some gasoli-"

Blackbourne is interrupted by Fairburn screaming quite loudly at the plant. Blackbourne shifts his attention towards the Honourable Ambassador just in time to see him run out with a bottle of herbicide. "You might want to watch yourself, Ambassador Plant. Some weapons might end up assembled in your offices if you continue that argument against this proposal."

Blackbourne turns to Barbera, who is now the only Glorian (?) left in the room. He opens his mouth, then remembers he isn't speaking to her any more, and then turns to Sergeant Timmons. He whispers something in Timmon's ear.

Timmons nods. "The Ambassador would like me to ask whether or not your delegation will now refuse to speak to the plants as well."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Timmons nods. "The Ambassador would like me to ask whether or not your delegation will now refuse to speak to the plants as well."

Barbera: I have no idea. You'll have to ask Neville or Ambassador Fairburn once they come back, wherever they are.

[Araraukar]

Neville: I'm glad to see that you don't consider us to be persons, Ambassador.

Fairburn grows visibly angry.

OOC: I'll get back to you with PPU later, but I think you misunderstood this bit, since what I said was "We have yet to notice anyone else be amused with such pedantry" - "anyone else", as in, Neville and Fairburn may be amused by it, but nobody else (as far as the hivemind has noticed anyway).

EDIT: Also, you need to add Barbera to your siggy if you're using her more.

---

Also OOC: Nobody's going to get any weaponry - herbicide or otherwise - into the PPU office, as it's not easily accessed; you need to go through an airlock, and the nullifiers work inside the airlock, so you can't just shoot your way through. Additionally, I honestly doubt any regular herbicides would work - EP and Tinfect have some idea why - and it'll be rather difficult to get anything, especially something like gasoline, to burn inside the airspace of PPU offices. There's a good reason for the airlock.

But if it amuses you guys, I can get back to it in greentext later.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: I'm glad to see that you don't consider us to be persons, Ambassador.

Fairburn grows visibly angry.

OOC: I'll get back to you with PPU later, but I think you misunderstood this bit, since what I said was "We have yet to notice anyone else be amused with such pedantry" - "anyone else", as in, Neville and Fairburn may be amused by it, but nobody else (as far as the hivemind has noticed anyway).

OOC: It's all IC. Don't worry about it.

Also, you need to add Barbera to your siggy if you're using her more.

OOC: I would, but since she doesn't really have a title, I'm unsure of what to put.

Also OOC: Nobody's going to get any weaponry - herbicide or otherwise - into the PPU office, as it's not easily accessed; you need to go through an airlock, and the nullifiers work inside the airlock, so you can't just shoot your way through. Additionally, I honestly doubt any regular herbicides would work - EP and Tinfect have some idea why - and it'll be rather difficult to get anything, especially something like gasoline, to burn inside the airspace of PPU offices. There's a good reason for the airlock.

OOC: I doubt that someone like Fairburn is going to care.

But if it amuses you guys, I can get back to it in greentext later.

OOC: Please do. I'd love to see this.