[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[Excidium Planetis]

What is meant by "extant" in Clause Four? Anything that exists now, or anything that could exist, now or in the future?

I always took it to mean "WA resolutions that existed at the time the proposal passed and became law", just on the general theory that a proposal can't possibly be written to take account of legislation that doesn't exist yet, except to prevent it from being written (which I don't think Clause 4 does).

"That's not true at all." Schultz says. "Considering I wrote a resolution that takes into account legislation that doesn't exist yet. Two, actually, if you count the repealed one."

[Calladan]

I always took it to mean "WA resolutions that existed at the time the proposal passed and became law", just on the general theory that a proposal can't possibly be written to take account of legislation that doesn't exist yet, except to prevent it from being written (which I don't think Clause 4 does).

"That's not true at all." Schultz says. "Considering I wrote a resolution that takes into account legislation that doesn't exist yet. Two, actually, if you count the repealed one."

Sorry - maybe I misexplained it. I just meant I could not see how you can write a proposal saying "This will ban Snorkack hunting, except for the exclusions written in GAR 271, GAR232 and a resolution that will be proposed in a years time that will allow Snorkack hunting for their blood, which will have been discovered to have magical healing properties".

I just find it difficult to take account of specific legislation that has not yet been drafted, since - well, since it has not yet been drafted.

Apologies for my mistake

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I always took it to mean "WA resolutions that existed at the time the proposal passed and became law", just on the general theory that a proposal can't possibly be written to take account of legislation that doesn't exist yet, except to prevent it from being written (which I don't think Clause 4 does).

"That's not true at all." Schultz says. "Considering I wrote a resolution that takes into account legislation that doesn't exist yet. Two, actually, if you count the repealed one."

I'd like to wait for the author to respond before commenting further.

[Excidium Planetis]

"That's not true at all." Schultz says. "Considering I wrote a resolution that takes into account legislation that doesn't exist yet. Two, actually, if you count the repealed one."

I'd like to wait for the author to respond before commenting further.

"I was merely commenting on the possibility of doing so, not on how the author of this proposal... Neville, was it? Not how he intended to write this."

[Bananaistan]

Neville: You know what? I'll humour you. Convince me that religious rituals are expressions of religious beliefs.

"The Wayfarers in our Fleets require as proof of faith a ceremonial bath... really just dunking, honestly... called a 'baptism'. These baptisms are considered public professions of faith and are the only professions of faith that are considered legitimate by Wayfarers. As such, according to them, it is not possible for one to express their beliefs without performing such a ritual. Since, obviously, the WA protects the right to expression of religious beliefs, and it is impossible to express a belief in the Way without performing a specific religious ritual, which by the way is the only legitimate expression of the Wayfarer religion, nations may not prohibit that specific ritual. Therefore, religious rituals are protected.

"I will go further," Blackbourne continues, "expression is simply defined as 'the act of making your thoughts, feelings, etc., known by speech, writing, or some other method'. Religious rituals are 'some other method' of making one's beliefs known. In fact, for many religions, they are practically required to make one's belief known. Surely you have religions in your nation which require public professions of faith, or some other proof of belief? These are religious rituals as you defined them here, and are also forms of expression protected by Freedom of Expression. I would go further and say that if, as you claim in your proposal, religious rituals are actions that are required on the basis of belief, rituals are therefore an aspect of belief, or conversely one can have belief in a ritual, and thus one is free to express their belief in that ritual. Isn't performing that ritual a way to express one's belief in it? And therefore, nations cannot unreasonably limit such expression."

"So because one particular religion requires its rituals to be public expressions of faith, we are to assume that all other religious rituals are public expressions of faith? I know of many religions whose rituals who are not public expressions of faith. For example, Brian of Tarth tells me that he received the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation yesterday. Only he and his pastor were in the room at the time. This was hardly a public expression of his faith and yet it was a religious ritual.

"Your logic would suggest that only religious rituals which are done purposely for the making of one's belief known through words or actions are currently protected under FoE. This ignores any religious ritual which is not done to make one's belief known. Shouldn't believers have the right to conduct such non-public rituals?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"The Wayfarers in our Fleets require as proof of faith a ceremonial bath... really just dunking, honestly... called a 'baptism'. These baptisms are considered public professions of faith and are the only professions of faith that are considered legitimate by Wayfarers. As such, according to them, it is not possible for one to express their beliefs without performing such a ritual. Since, obviously, the WA protects the right to expression of religious beliefs, and it is impossible to express a belief in the Way without performing a specific religious ritual, which by the way is the only legitimate expression of the Wayfarer religion, nations may not prohibit that specific ritual. Therefore, religious rituals are protected.

"I will go further," Blackbourne continues, "expression is simply defined as 'the act of making your thoughts, feelings, etc., known by speech, writing, or some other method'. Religious rituals are 'some other method' of making one's beliefs known. In fact, for many religions, they are practically required to make one's belief known. Surely you have religions in your nation which require public professions of faith, or some other proof of belief? These are religious rituals as you defined them here, and are also forms of expression protected by Freedom of Expression. I would go further and say that if, as you claim in your proposal, religious rituals are actions that are required on the basis of belief, rituals are therefore an aspect of belief, or conversely one can have belief in a ritual, and thus one is free to express their belief in that ritual. Isn't performing that ritual a way to express one's belief in it? And therefore, nations cannot unreasonably limit such expression."

"So because one particular religion requires its rituals to be public expressions of faith, we are to assume that all other religious rituals are public expressions of faith?

"Some of them are merely private expressions of faith, which are still protected."

I know of many religions whose rituals who are not public expressions of faith. For example, Brian of Tarth tells me that he received the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation yesterday. Only he and his pastor were in the room at the time. This was hardly a public expression of his faith and yet it was a religious ritual.

"It was also a private expression of faith."

"Your logic would suggest that only religious rituals which are done purposely for the making of one's belief known through words or actions are currently protected under FoE.

"All rituals are done to make one's belief known... either to others, or to some deity."

This ignores any religious ritual which is not done to make one's belief known. Shouldn't believers have the right to conduct such non-public rituals?"

"Of course. And Freedom of Expression allows non-public expressions of faith too."

[Bananaistan]

"All rituals are done to make one's belief known... either to others, or to some deity."

"This appears to be the centre point of your entire argument in that even private rituals are done to make one's belief known to, at least, the deity if not another individual. I don't agree. Firstly, you can't assume to know the exact nature of every ritual ever performed. Secondly, the definitions used in this proposal for both religious belief and religious rituals make no mention whatsoever of any deity or deities. Thirdly, there are such things as nontheistic religions."

- Ted Hornwood

[Excidium Planetis]

"All rituals are done to make one's belief known... either to others, or to some deity."

"This appears to be the centre point of your entire argument in that even private rituals are done to make one's belief known to, at least, the deity if not another individual. I don't agree. Firstly, you can't assume to know the exact nature of every ritual ever performed.

"I don't see any other reason to require an act, other than as a proof of belief."

Secondly, the definitions used in this proposal for both religious belief and religious rituals make no mention whatsoever of any deity or deities. Thirdly, there are such things as nontheistic religions."

"As I said, it can be to others, even if to only one person like a priest, or even to one's self, I suppose."

Blackbourne pauses a moment. "But I am getting lost in the details. Are you saying that rituals are not a form of expression? Even if the underlying cause of ritual performance is not to prove belief, it still does so. An individual performing the sacred cow slaughter, even were it not for proof of faith, still unintentionally expresses their faith by making it known."

[Bananaistan]

"This appears to be the centre point of your entire argument in that even private rituals are done to make one's belief known to, at least, the deity if not another individual. I don't agree. Firstly, you can't assume to know the exact nature of every ritual ever performed.

"I don't see any other reason to require an act, other than as a proof of belief."

Secondly, the definitions used in this proposal for both religious belief and religious rituals make no mention whatsoever of any deity or deities. Thirdly, there are such things as nontheistic religions."

"As I said, it can be to others, even if to only one person like a priest, or even to one's self, I suppose."

Blackbourne pauses a moment. "But I am getting lost in the details. Are you saying that rituals are not a form of expression? Even if the underlying cause of ritual performance is not to prove belief, it still does so. An individual performing the sacred cow slaughter, even were it not for proof of faith, still unintentionally expresses their faith by making it known."

"The details are what we are here for!

"If we stick to the definition of expression which you introduced to the debate, is not hard to conceive of rituals which do not make one's beliefs known. Particularly any ritual performed by an individual with no audience. And bear in mind that the definitions used in the proposal effectively define rituals as acts required or encouraged by the individual's belief system which dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its believers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment."

- Ted Hornwood

[Alozia]

OOC: Isn't there already at least one resolution like this?

EDIT: Pretty sure that GA#3 Freedom of Expression takes care of this.

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Isn't there already at least one resolution like this?

EDIT: Pretty sure that GA#3 Freedom of Expression takes care of this.

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

"That deals with outward expressions. It doesn't deal with private beliefs, or indirect methods of restrictions, such as banning the construction of churches, or making it illegal to produce halal food, or even making it illegal to believe in god (do note the lack of capitalization), as none of these are an outwards expression in their entirety. There is room for legislation on the matter."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Neither. This proposal does nothing that existing resolutions don't already do."

Neville: Ah, so existing resolutions explicitly give member states the right to establish an official religion? That's news to me.

"Your response, as far as I can tell, was only this:

Not exactly. GA #35 a.k.a Charter of Civil Rights deals with "private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public". In this case, I think that Article 2 Clause D has me covered.

"But this counterargument is completely insufficient. After all, Article 1 Clause C itself makes no such limitations to its scope, and specifically says, emphasis mine,

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

"CoCR makes it clear, under no circumstances at all, not just those of private employment and housing etc, are member nations to discriminate based on religion.

Neville: Forgive me if I begin to sound like Ambassador Parsons, but the section which you highlighted is in the passive voice. It doesn't direct member states to really do anything. While I mostly disagree with Ambassador Parsons on his obsessive desire for a standardised format, he does have a point in arguing against the passive voice. The question of whether a clause written in the passive can be counted as an active clause is too big for a one-on-one here, so let's make this a free-for-all, shall we?

Finally, while Article 2 Clause D does allow expansion of protections, this is not an expansion at all. It is simply repeating what Freedom of Expression and CoCR already do."

Neville: I'd disagree with you there for reasons which I'll point out soon enough.

Neville: What the flying...? Ambassador, are you aware of the meaning of the word 'request'? Are you aware that requests aren't mandates? Does your government treat all recommendations as orders that need to be followed

Blackbourne responds before Schultz can.
"However, Request and Demand are synonyms. Perhaps you should consult a thesaurus before accusing Madam Schultz of failure to know the meaning of words.

OOC: According to that thesaurus, begging and inviting are also synonyms of requesting. Now I'm almost tempted to have the WA beg member nations to refrain from criminalising such activity.

"Now tell me, if we substitute the word 'Demands' into your proposal, are you going to argue that your proposal does not say what Delegate Schultz says it says?"

Neville: It depends. If there is no enforcement mechanism, I'd argue that demanding is just as toothless as requesting, asking or even begging. If there is an enforcement mechanism, demands can actually be enforced, so it'd be almost the same strength, if not the same strength, as a mandate or a requirement.

Neville: Why would you set up a code of behaviours, practices and morals if you don't have anyone else who's in on it from the start?

"I haven't the faintest idea." Schultz snaps. "Why don't you invent timetravel, go back to ancient Earth, and ask Muhammad and Siddhartha Gautama why they would do so?

OOC: Wait, are you trying to tell me that both of them are part of your RP history?

Under your proposal here, the instant either of them started trying to convert people, the government could imprison them because their crazy beliefs aren't religions."

Neville: First, I get criticised for protecting religions with just one follower. Now I'm being criticised for not protecting religions with just one follower! If this is the sort of nonsense that I have to deal with then I might just consider leaving the clause as is and letting individual nations do whatever the heck they want!

Rowan: Chill out, dude. The solution is simple, man. Protect all religions, even if they have no followers.

Neville: One could make an argument that the proposal already does that! (breathes in and out) Look, there are two options: I leave it open-ended or I choose a path to go down. However, I can't go down two paths at the same time, so I must first reach a consensus. Otherwise, the clause is being left ambiguous. Deal?

What is meant by "extant" in Clause Four? Anything that exists now, or anything that could exist, now or in the future?

Neville: Oh my God, it's the Kennyites! This is such an honour, sir! When I first started out, I didn't think that I'd ever get the opportunity to...

Rowan: Just answer the question already.

Neville: Right, sorry. (clears breath) It's meant to refer to anything that exists now. I've seen multiple resolutions get away with it, although I am of course open to suggestions on how to improve the wording.

"This appears to be the centre point of your entire argument in that even private rituals are done to make one's belief known to, at least, the deity if not another individual. I don't agree. Firstly, you can't assume to know the exact nature of every ritual ever performed.

"I don't see any other reason to require an act, other than as a proof of belief."

Neville: How about spiritual enlightenment? You know, the one thing all religions strive towards according to the definition used in this proposal?

Blackbourne pauses a moment. "But I am getting lost in the details. Are you saying that rituals are not a form of expression? Even if the underlying cause of ritual performance is not to prove belief, it still does so. An individual performing the sacred cow slaughter, even were it not for proof of faith, still unintentionally expresses their faith by making it known."

Neville: If there's a religious ritual that involves meditating in private away from public exposure and for the sole purpose of spiritual enlightenment rather than to prove anything to anyone else or to a deity, which this religion doesn't recognise the existence of, how is that already protected? Bear in mind that this isn't even an implausible situation. I could easily have come up with more...unusual rituals. This is why I don't believe that this is already covered by prior resolutions.

"That deals with outward expressions. It doesn't deal with private beliefs, or indirect methods of restrictions, such as banning the construction of churches, or making it illegal to produce halal food, or even making it illegal to believe in god (do note the lack of capitalization), as none of these are an outwards expression in their entirety. There is room for legislation on the matter."

Neville: Not in this draft, there isn't. It's as large enough as I'd be able to bear were I just a casual reader, so I'm afraid that places of worship and dietary requirements are definitely not on the agenda for this proposal. That said, I'm open to addressing them in future legislation, but that would require much more planning than a standalone proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Neville: Not in this draft, there isn't. It's as large enough as I'd be able to bear were I just a casual reader, so I'm afraid that places of worship and dietary requirements are definitely not on the agenda for this proposal. That said, I'm open to addressing them in future legislation, but that would require much more planning than a standalone proposal.

"I was merely pointing out the inadequacies of the resolution Freedom of Expression in this area, not commenting to this proposal."

[Excidium Planetis]

"I don't see any other reason to require an act, other than as a proof of belief."


"As I said, it can be to others, even if to only one person like a priest, or even to one's self, I suppose."

Blackbourne pauses a moment. "But I am getting lost in the details. Are you saying that rituals are not a form of expression? Even if the underlying cause of ritual performance is not to prove belief, it still does so. An individual performing the sacred cow slaughter, even were it not for proof of faith, still unintentionally expresses their faith by making it known."

"The details are what we are here for!

"If we stick to the definition of expression which you introduced to the debate, is not hard to conceive of rituals which do not make one's beliefs known. Particularly any ritual performed by an individual with no audience.

"I will concede that such rituals are not expressions of faith. However, such rituals need no protection by WA law. Let's consider it for a moment:

"If a ritual is both observed by another and recognizable as a religious act, then it is an act of expression as it identifies the performer's faith. If it is observed but not recognizable as a religious act, or if it is not observed, then it effectively cannot be criminalized. By definition, such a 'crime' cannot be witnessed or identified as a crime. So the only kinds of rituals that can even be outlawed in an enforceable manner are the ones that are expressions of faith."

"Neither. This proposal does nothing that existing resolutions don't already do."

Neville: Ah, so existing resolutions explicitly give member states the right to establish an official religion? That's news to me.

"Yes. GA#2 says, in its first Article,

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

"Now, of course, the freedom to choose your own government stops at the WA, so you may object that the WA can (and has, in the past) interfere with nation's right to determine their own government. The problem is that the WA is limited by the Secretariat in what it can do, and any attempt to ban theocracies would run afoul of the Ideological Ban rule. So nations are free to choose a theocratic government without interference from any other nation according to GA#2, and they are free to do so without interference from the General Assembly by the Rules." Blackbourne finishes.

"If you have any doubt, try to ban state religions and see how that flies." Schultz adds.

"Your response, as far as I can tell, was only this:

"But this counterargument is completely insufficient. After all, Article 1 Clause C itself makes no such limitations to its scope, and specifically says, emphasis mine,

"CoCR makes it clear, under no circumstances at all, not just those of private employment and housing etc, are member nations to discriminate based on religion.

Neville: Forgive me if I begin to sound like Ambassador Parsons, but the section which you highlighted is in the passive voice. It doesn't direct member states to really do anything. While I mostly disagree with Ambassador Parsons on his obsessive desire for a standardised format, he does have a point in arguing against the passive voice. The question of whether a clause written in the passive can be counted as an active clause is too big for a one-on-one here, so let's make this a free-for-all, shall we?

"I'll argue against your argument not on the merits of the argument itself, which is quite reasonable, but on the logical conclusion of your argument. If the passive voice really doesn't require nations to do anything, and CoCR really does only apply to 'private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public', then CoCR fails to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry, as marriage is not one of those things you say CoCR covers. But that directly contradicts the argument put forward in Repeal 'Freedom of Marriage Act', which states, and I bold for relevance to this proposal:

Recalling that subsequent to Freedom of Marriage Act's adoption, Resolution #35: The Charter of Civil Rights (COCR) was enacted, forbidding discrimination by governments and/or public-service providers based on any "reductive categorisation," not just sex or sexual preference,

Contending that the passage of COCR eclipses the need for a Freedom of Marriage Act, as COCR effectively outlaws discrimination in the performance and recognition of marriages, and in a far more efficient manner,

Believing that this is evidenced by the fact that Freedom of Marriage Act only addresses discrimination in marriage based on sex, whereas COCR also outlaws discrimination against interracial, interfaith or intercultural couples,

"The argument is as true today as it was then. CoCR does ban all discrimination based on any reductive categorization, not just discrimination in the specific areas addressed in Article 2."

OOC: According to that thesaurus, begging and inviting are also synonyms of requesting. Now I'm almost tempted to have the WA beg member nations to refrain from criminalising such activity.

OOC:
Maybe, but beg is still not a synonym of recommend, so trying to equate a request to a recommendation is a false uh... analogy? Whatever. The difference is that Request can be interpreted as either a Demand or Begging, whereas Begging can be interpreted as a Request but never as a Demand. Since Demand is a legal interpretation of that clause, you still have self contradiction.

"Now tell me, if we substitute the word 'Demands' into your proposal, are you going to argue that your proposal does not say what Delegate Schultz says it says?"

Neville: It depends. If there is no enforcement mechanism, I'd argue that demanding is just as toothless as requesting, asking or even begging. If there is an enforcement mechanism, demands can actually be enforced, so it'd be almost the same strength, if not the same strength, as a mandate or a requirement.

"So what you are saying," Schultz questions, "is that your proposal only contradicts itself if it is enforced? That makes no sense."

"I haven't the faintest idea." Schultz snaps. "Why don't you invent timetravel, go back to ancient Earth, and ask Muhammad and Siddhartha Gautama why they would do so?

OOC: Wait, are you trying to tell me that both of them are part of your RP history?

Yes. Earth is the origin of the human species which most Excidians belong to, and all real world history up to the current year are canon. Excidium Planetis exists in either the year 4016 or 3016, it is currently the former but I've been trying to move to the latter for awhile and never got around to reconciling the dates.

Under your proposal here, the instant either of them started trying to convert people, the government could imprison them because their crazy beliefs aren't religions."

Neville: First, I get criticised for protecting religions with just one follower. Now I'm being criticised for not protecting religions with just one follower! If this is the sort of nonsense that I have to deal with then I might just consider leaving the clause as is and letting individual nations do whatever the heck they want!

OOC:
#AllReligionsMatter

Blackbourne pauses a moment. "But I am getting lost in the details. Are you saying that rituals are not a form of expression? Even if the underlying cause of ritual performance is not to prove belief, it still does so. An individual performing the sacred cow slaughter, even were it not for proof of faith, still unintentionally expresses their faith by making it known."

Neville: If there's a religious ritual that involves meditating in private away from public exposure and for the sole purpose of spiritual enlightenment rather than to prove anything to anyone else or to a deity, which this religion doesn't recognise the existence of, how is that already protected? Bear in mind that this isn't even an implausible situation. I could easily have come up with more...unusual rituals. This is why I don't believe that this is already covered by prior resolutions.

"Please explain exactly how such an act could be criminalized in a way that is actually enforceable. If it is a completely private act, there are no witnesses. If there are witnesses who recognize it as a religious act, then it is an expression of religious belief, even if an unintentional one, and therefore is protected."

[Imperium Anglorum]

NORTH: (OOC: North is a card-carrying member of the state religion) God exists. It is a moral responsibility to save souls. Thus, it is morally reprehensible to allow heresies or heathen religions to exist. The alternative to action is inaction and to allow thousands and even millions to suffer consequences which we, by action, could avert. The Crown, as the leader and embodiment of the Church, sees no reason to ratify the decisions of its government in this matter that would prevent that government from taking action to preserve the eternal salvation of millions.

[Bananaistan]

"I will concede that such rituals are not expressions of faith. However, such rituals need no protection by WA law. Let's consider it for a moment:

"If a ritual is both observed by another and recognizable as a religious act, then it is an act of expression as it identifies the performer's faith. If it is observed but not recognizable as a religious act, or if it is not observed, then it effectively cannot be criminalized. By definition, such a 'crime' cannot be witnessed or identified as a crime. So the only kinds of rituals that can even be outlawed in an enforceable manner are the ones that are expressions of faith."

"I don't follow that if it is not recognisable as a religious act that it cannot be criminalised. If it is not making one's beliefs (or opinions or views etc) known it is not a protected expression under FoE and could be criminalised. Indeed, the same would apply if it is recognisable as a religious act but does not identify the particular belief system. Effectively we have now arrived at a situation where only religious rituals where all observers are aware of both the nature of the rituals as religious rituals and that they are required or encouraged by a particular belief system are protected expression under FoE.

"Where all the observers recognise it as a religious ritual but not as a religious ritual required or encouraged by a particular belief system, at best, it could be described as a statement that the participants hold a religious belief but not a statement of their religious beliefs unless there's someone there actively communicating to all observers why they are performing the ritual and which particular belief system require or encourages it to be performed."

- Ted Hornwood

[Calladan]

This is possibly going out on a limb, and there is every chance that my concern will be somewhat ill-founded, however when I was growing up, I was told there were no stupid suggestions. (That's clearly not true, but *shrug*)

There is currently a proposal to Repeal The Right to Sexual Privacy in the list of proposals for The WA. It's probably not going to go to the floor - it lacks any real support - but still, it's there.

Hereby presenting a suggestive list of recognized sexual fixations whose behavior cannot be regulated pursuant clauses 1 and 4, even given the exception granted by clause 8:

- Auto-cannibalism
- Auto-erotic asphyxiation
- Mechanophilia
- Hematolagnia
- Pyrophilia

Further concerned that crimes such as vandalism and fraud can be done "away from public exposure" and do not "directly cause physical harm to any other individual," but instead cause harms of an emotional or financial nature, and with the potential to be in fact sources of sexual arousal for some individuals...

Now - I am not making any comment on whether their argument is valid or not, but instead my question/suggestion is this :-

If the proposal being debated in this thread (Religious Freedom) will enact the following :-

4) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUESTS member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

does that mean that the things for which the group of delegates are trying to repeal Sexual Privacy would also be required to be legalised (or at least made uncriminalisable) if someone does them for religious reasons? (I realise that is a very torturous sentence but I could not think of a better way to phrase it).

And - more to the point - are there other things that might be illegal that could now be protected because someone claims them as a ritual and does them for religious satisfaction (in the same way Sexual Privacy protects some activities when done for sexual satisfaction)?

[Excidium Planetis]

"I will concede that such rituals are not expressions of faith. However, such rituals need no protection by WA law. Let's consider it for a moment:

"If a ritual is both observed by another and recognizable as a religious act, then it is an act of expression as it identifies the performer's faith. If it is observed but not recognizable as a religious act, or if it is not observed, then it effectively cannot be criminalized. By definition, such a 'crime' cannot be witnessed or identified as a crime. So the only kinds of rituals that can even be outlawed in an enforceable manner are the ones that are expressions of faith."

"I don't follow that if it is not recognisable as a religious act that it cannot be criminalised. If it is not making one's beliefs (or opinions or views etc) known it is not a protected expression under FoE and could be criminalised.

"Well, I suppose so, but-" Blackbourne begins.

Schultz, exasperated, interjects. "Yes, but how would it be enforced? How can you outlaw a religious act which you cannot recognize? You might as well outlaw invisible tree people. And don't tell me that nations would outlaw an act without knowing that it was religious... some religious person would speak up, and say that it was a religious ritual and that outlawing it was discriminatory, and then suddenly it becomes recognizable as a religious act and is therefore an expression of faith."

Indeed, the same would apply if it is recognisable as a religious act but does not identify the particular belief system. Effectively we have now arrived at a situation where only religious rituals where all observers are aware of both the nature of the rituals as religious rituals and that they are required or encouraged by a particular belief system are protected expression under FoE.

"Where all the observers recognise it as a religious ritual but not as a religious ritual required or encouraged by a particular belief system, at best, it could be described as a statement that the participants hold a religious belief but not a statement of their religious beliefs unless there's someone there actively communicating to all observers why they are performing the ritual and which particular belief system require or encourages it to be performed."

Blackbourne regains control of the conversation.
"Your argument only holds if 'Freedom of Expression' only protects religious expressions that identify a specific faith, rather than a faith in general. I argue that if a ritual is recognizable as a religious ritual, even if it is not recognizable as a ritual of a specific faith, it is still an expression of religious belief. For example, praying to a deity is a ritual many religions encourage or even require. Many different monotheistic religions refer to their deity as 'God', and in a public prayer may call on their 'God' for whatever reason. Such an act is recognizable as a ritual but not as a ritual of a specific faith, nevertheless it identifies the individual as a religious person, or can, and thus is an act of expression of religion, though not an expression of a particular religion. But because 'Freedom of Expression' protects expression of religious belief without clarification that it must express a particular religion's belief, I argue that such acts are protected."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Did you actually read Freedom of Expression? It only protects speech in "available media" - meaning if you write a book, paint a mural, go on TV, even etch a chalk drawing on a sidewalk, it is considered protected speech. Speaking from a pulpit is arguably a form of protected speech under FoE; being baptized is not. (Unless you consider the water itself a "medium.")

Anything that can simply be "observed" is not automatically protected expression as far as FoE is concerned.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Not in this draft, there isn't. It's as large enough as I'd be able to bear were I just a casual reader, so I'm afraid that places of worship and dietary requirements are definitely not on the agenda for this proposal. That said, I'm open to addressing them in future legislation, but that would require much more planning than a standalone proposal.

"I was merely pointing out the inadequacies of the resolution Freedom of Expression in this area, not commenting to this proposal."

Neville: My apologies. By the way you were speaking, I assumed that you were expecting me to address those issues in this proposal. They're worthy issues, for sure, but they're large enough to have their own resolutions, in my opinion. By the way, do you know where Rowan is? He appears to have disappeared somewhere.

Neville: Ah, so existing resolutions explicitly give member states the right to establish an official religion? That's news to me.

"Yes. GA#2 says, in its first Article,

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

"Now, of course, the freedom to choose your own government stops at the WA, so you may object that the WA can (and has, in the past) interfere with nation's right to determine their own government. The problem is that the WA is limited by the Secretariat in what it can do, and any attempt to ban theocracies would run afoul of the Ideological Ban rule. So nations are free to choose a theocratic government without interference from any other nation according to GA#2, and they are free to do so without interference from the General Assembly by the Rules." Blackbourne finishes.

Neville: You don't need to be a theocracy to have an official religion, nor is having an official religion enough for a country to be considered as a theocracy.

"If you have any doubt, try to ban state religions and see how that flies." Schultz adds.

Neville: Pfft. Proposals can't fly, Ambassador. They just sit there in the Archive doing nothing.

(OOC: Of course banning state religions would be unpopular, but would it actually be illegal?)

Neville: Forgive me if I begin to sound like Ambassador Parsons, but the section which you highlighted is in the passive voice. It doesn't direct member states to really do anything. While I mostly disagree with Ambassador Parsons on his obsessive desire for a standardised format, he does have a point in arguing against the passive voice. The question of whether a clause written in the passive can be counted as an active clause is too big for a one-on-one here, so let's make this a free-for-all, shall we?

"I'll argue against your argument not on the merits of the argument itself, which is quite reasonable, but on the logical conclusion of your argument. If the passive voice really doesn't require nations to do anything, and CoCR really does only apply to 'private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public', then CoCR fails to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry, as marriage is not one of those things you say CoCR covers. But that directly contradicts the argument put forward in Repeal 'Freedom of Marriage Act', which states, and I bold for relevance to this proposal:

Recalling that subsequent to Freedom of Marriage Act's adoption, Resolution #35: The Charter of Civil Rights (COCR) was enacted, forbidding discrimination by governments and/or public-service providers based on any "reductive categorisation," not just sex or sexual preference,

Contending that the passage of COCR eclipses the need for a Freedom of Marriage Act, as COCR effectively outlaws discrimination in the performance and recognition of marriages, and in a far more efficient manner,

Believing that this is evidenced by the fact that Freedom of Marriage Act only addresses discrimination in marriage based on sex, whereas COCR also outlaws discrimination against interracial, interfaith or intercultural couples,

"The argument is as true today as it was then. CoCR does ban all discrimination based on any reductive categorization, not just discrimination in the specific areas addressed in Article 2."

Neville: Isn't marriage a governmental institution in many nations? I'd argue that denying equal rights in marriage is denying access to a service provided to the general public. In any case, isn't the point rather moot due to GA #205 a.k.a Freedom to Contract?

OOC: According to that thesaurus, begging and inviting are also synonyms of requesting. Now I'm almost tempted to have the WA beg member nations to refrain from criminalising such activity.

OOC:
Maybe, but beg is still not a synonym of recommend, so trying to equate a request to a recommendation is a false uh... analogy? Whatever. The difference is that Request can be interpreted as either a Demand or Begging, whereas Begging can be interpreted as a Request but never as a Demand. Since Demand is a legal interpretation of that clause, you still have self contradiction.

Neville: It depends. If there is no enforcement mechanism, I'd argue that demanding is just as toothless as requesting, asking or even begging. If there is an enforcement mechanism, demands can actually be enforced, so it'd be almost the same strength, if not the same strength, as a mandate or a requirement.

"So what you are saying," Schultz questions, "is that your proposal only contradicts itself if it is enforced? That makes no sense."

Neville: No, I was just giving my opinion on how much of an impact a 'Demands' clause has on member nations. I believe that the draft is consistent even if Clause Five uses 'Requires' or 'Mandates', the strongest positive actions the WA can do. I'll prove it too:

4) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

Neville: Clause Four states that WA members must not criminalise religious rituals if they're otherwise legal. It never states that members have to criminalise religious rituals if they're otherwise illegal, it merely states that they have the option. That part should be straightforward. Clause Five qualifies this right by introducing exemptions. I could theoretically try to mash the two clauses together, but that would result in an incoherent mess. Besides, you've been here long enough, Ambassador, to know that qualifying rights and freedoms granted by the WA is nothing new.

All that is if Clause Five actually requires anything. Your nation may choose to consider that to be the case, and that's their loss, but I think you'll find that most nations consider 'request' and 'recommend' to be practically synonymous. If that isn't the case then I'll personally pay the salaries of the entire Excidian delegation, including yours.

And - more to the point - are there other things that might be illegal that could now be protected because someone claims them as a ritual and does them for religious satisfaction (in the same way Sexual Privacy protects some activities when done for sexual satisfaction)?

Neville: Your two questions deal with the same issue, so I'll answer them both at once. If someone tries to perform an illegal act under the justification that it is a religious ritual, member states could still arrest and charge that person because of how Clause Four is worded. The clause actually provides minimal protection to religious practices, but to counter that, Clause Five requests that member states decriminalise illegal acts performed because of religious beliefs if certain circumstances are met. However, that's all it is: a request. So no, nations aren't obliged to provide special protection to religions, but it is recommended that they do so.

As for the acts that you mentioned, they would still be legal for now regardless of the reason for doing them, but if Sexual Privacy Act is repealed, that would no longer be the case.

Did you actually read Freedom of Expression? It only protects speech in "available media" - meaning if you write a book, paint a mural, go on TV, even etch a chalk drawing on a sidewalk, it is considered protected speech. Speaking from a pulpit is arguably a form of protected speech under FoE; being baptized is not. (Unless you consider the water itself a "medium.")

Anything that can simply be "observed" is not automatically protected expression as far as FoE is concerned.

Neville: My most sincere apologies to the Kennyites for the poor arguments presented by the Excidians. We will take steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

(Rowan enters the room, holding a 'Save the Dolphins' sign.)

Neville: What are you doing?!

Rowan: The Kennyites are waging war against mother nature by slaughtering poor, innocent dolphins. We condemn them and their actions. We also condemn the World Assembly for giving these monsters a voice. Kick the Kennyites Out!

[Excidium Planetis]

Did you actually read Freedom of Expression? It only protects speech in "available media" - meaning if you write a book, paint a mural, go on TV, even etch a chalk drawing on a sidewalk, it is considered protected speech.

"Now, I know you are the author, and sir, I mean absolutely no disrepect," Blackbourne hesitates before finishing his sentence, "but that isn't true."

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

"There is no mention of media in this clause which establishes the right to free expression."

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

"Then nations are expected to enforce that right fairly and equitably. Yes, the clause in between these two clauses mentions media specifically, but even if that clause didn't exist at all, as you can see, nations are still expected to enforce the right to free expression."

"Yes. GA#2 says, in its first Article,

"Now, of course, the freedom to choose your own government stops at the WA, so you may object that the WA can (and has, in the past) interfere with nation's right to determine their own government. The problem is that the WA is limited by the Secretariat in what it can do, and any attempt to ban theocracies would run afoul of the Ideological Ban rule. So nations are free to choose a theocratic government without interference from any other nation according to GA#2, and they are free to do so without interference from the General Assembly by the Rules." Blackbourne finishes.

Neville: You don't need to be a theocracy to have an official religion, nor is having an official religion enough for a country to be considered as a theocracy.

"I claimed neither, and in fact those are actually the same claim, essentially, and therefore using that claim as a counter argument is a strawman. I claimed that banning state religions would run afoul of the rule against ideological bans, as theocracies would not exist if there were no state religions. Yes, one may have a state religion without a theocracy. But one cannot have a theocracy without a state religion, and therefore a ban on state religions would be a ban on theocracies."

"If you have any doubt, try to ban state religions and see how that flies." Schultz adds.

Neville: Pfft. Proposals can't fly, Ambassador. They just sit there in the Archive doing nothing.

Schultz folds up her copy of the current proposal into a fairly accurate representation of a Bolt starfighter, and throws it. It flies squarely into Neville's chest.

"I'll argue against your argument not on the merits of the argument itself, which is quite reasonable, but on the logical conclusion of your argument. If the passive voice really doesn't require nations to do anything, and CoCR really does only apply to 'private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public', then CoCR fails to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry, as marriage is not one of those things you say CoCR covers. But that directly contradicts the argument put forward in Repeal 'Freedom of Marriage Act', which states, and I bold for relevance to this proposal:

"The argument is as true today as it was then. CoCR does ban all discrimination based on any reductive categorization, not just discrimination in the specific areas addressed in Article 2."

Neville: Isn't marriage a governmental institution in many nations? I'd argue that denying equal rights in marriage is denying access to a service provided to the general public. In any case, isn't the point rather moot due to GA #205 a.k.a Freedom to Contract?

"I think," Schultz says, "that unlike my paper starship, you are missing the point. It isn't about whether or not marriage is a public service, it is about the argument presented in Repeal Freedom of Marriage: that GA#35 forbids 'discrimination by governments... based on any reductive categorisation'. What was true in the repeal is still true: CoCR does ban discrimination in its first article, passive voice or not."

OOC:
Maybe, but beg is still not a synonym of recommend, so trying to equate a request to a recommendation is a false uh... analogy? Whatever. The difference is that Request can be interpreted as either a Demand or Begging, whereas Begging can be interpreted as a Request but never as a Demand. Since Demand is a legal interpretation of that clause, you still have self contradiction.

"So what you are saying," Schultz questions, "is that your proposal only contradicts itself if it is enforced? That makes no sense."

Neville: No, I was just giving my opinion on how much of an impact a 'Demands' clause has on member nations. I believe that the draft is consistent even if Clause Five uses 'Requires' or 'Mandates', the strongest positive actions the WA can do. I'll prove it too:

4) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals unless they contradict extant WA legislation or would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons,

5) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

Neville: Clause Four states that WA members must not criminalise religious rituals if they're otherwise legal. It never states that members have to criminalise religious rituals if they're otherwise illegal, it merely states that they have the option. That part should be straightforward.

"Oh, we agree, completely." Blackbourne eagerly agrees. "This was never in doubt. It is Clause 5 which creates the problem."

Clause Five qualifies this right by introducing exemptions.

"Now the trouble is-" Blackbourne begins.

"This is why Ambassadors should write the resolutions." Schultz remarks.

"-Clause 5 actually does not not qualify-" Blackbourne continues, annoyed.

"That's not at all what it says!" Schultz exclaims. "Clause 4 allows nations the option to criminalize activities that are otherwise illegal, and then Clause 5 does an about face and takes that option away. It explicitly says, emphasis mine,"

5) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

"I'm going to illustrate the contradiction through a totally bizarre example. Say, for some reason, there was a religion which required minors to film themselves performing individual sexual activities. Totally illogical, I know, but it makes as much sense as winged people announcing virgin births, so just stay with me here. Now, Clause 4 quite reasonably allows nations to ban such rituals as they are otherwise illegal due to WA law. But Clause 5 requires nations to legalize it, because it does not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings. Surely you can see how these clauses contradict?"

I could theoretically try to mash the two clauses together, but that would result in an incoherent mess. Besides, you've been here long enough, Ambassador, to know that qualifying rights and freedoms granted by the WA is nothing new.

"I've been here long enough to spot self-contradiction. Clause 4 allows nations to ban illegal activities, and Clause 5 requires them to not ban those same activities." Schultz retorts.

All that is if Clause Five actually requires anything. Your nation may choose to consider that to be the case, and that's their loss, but I think you'll find that most nations consider 'request' and 'recommend' to be practically synonymous. If that isn't the case then I'll personally pay the salaries of the entire Excidian delegation, including yours.

It is quite clear Blackbourne, for all his effort, has completely lost control of the show. Schultz continues:
"I don't see why any delegation would think that, since recommend and request are not synonyms in any dictionary or thesaurus I have ever seen. Request is to ask for something, and recommend is to put forward a suggestion or endorsement. Requests are almost always phrased as questions, recommendations are statements, and can only be phrased as questions when the questions are rhetorical. That alone should show that they are not synonyms: Ask and Commend are not synonyms, but ask is a synonym of request and commend is a synonym of recommend."

Neville: My most sincere apologies to the Kennyites for the poor arguments presented by the Excidians. We will take steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

Schultz frowns. She turns to look at Blackbourne. "Now?"

Blackbourne stares. He doesn't look happy either, but he seems reluctant to agree with Schultz.

"It's a General Assembly tradition. We have to bring it to the next generation of Ambassadors." Schultz explains.

"Alright. But only because I value tradition and our own honor." Blackbourne relents.

The two walk up to Neville, grab him by the arms and legs, and together, they throw him out the nearest window into the Reflecting Pool. I hear it is quite lovely this time of year.

[States of Glory WA Office]

(Neville enters the hall, his clothes soaked and his shoes damp)

Neville: Well, it was inevitable that I'd be defenestrated at some point. I just expected it to be over National Taxation Act or something more controversial, not this.

Rowan: And lo, you have been anointed! Step forward and fulfil your destiny!

Neville: Actually, you make a good point. Does dunking Ambassadors in the Reflecting Pool count as a religious ritual? Hmm...

Neville: You don't need to be a theocracy to have an official religion, nor is having an official religion enough for a country to be considered as a theocracy.

"I claimed neither, and in fact those are actually the same claim, essentially, and therefore using that claim as a counter argument is a strawman.

Neville: I don't follow you.

I claimed that banning state religions would run afoul of the rule against ideological bans, as theocracies would not exist if there were no state religions. Yes, one may have a state religion without a theocracy. But one cannot have a theocracy without a state religion, and therefore a ban on state religions would be a ban on theocracies."

Neville: Perhaps, but let's be honest, we're going to have people waltz in here and claim that this proposal bans theocracies. We might as well prepare, eh?

Neville: Isn't marriage a governmental institution in many nations? I'd argue that denying equal rights in marriage is denying access to a service provided to the general public. In any case, isn't the point rather moot due to GA #205 a.k.a Freedom to Contract?

"I think," Schultz says, "that unlike my paper starship, you are missing the point. It isn't about whether or not marriage is a public service, it is about the argument presented in Repeal Freedom of Marriage: that GA#35 forbids 'discrimination by governments... based on any reductive categorisation'. What was true in the repeal is still true: CoCR does ban discrimination in its first article, passive voice or not."

Neville: Firstly, the repeal is just one interpretation. Secondly, I'm not sure if the repeal ever explicitly mentioned the first article as the clause that banned discrimination in marriage.

Clause Five qualifies this right by introducing exemptions.

"That's not at all what it says!" Schultz exclaims. "Clause 4 allows nations the option to criminalize activities that are otherwise illegal, and then Clause 5 does an about face and takes that option away. It explicitly says, emphasis mine,"

5) REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals that would otherwise be illegal were they not performed for religious reasons if such rituals do not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings,

"I'm going to illustrate the contradiction through a totally bizarre example. Say, for some reason, there was a religion which required minors to film themselves performing individual sexual activities. Totally illogical, I know, but it makes as much sense as winged people announcing virgin births, so just stay with me here. Now, Clause 4 quite reasonably allows nations to ban such rituals as they are otherwise illegal due to WA law. But Clause 5 requires nations to legalize it, because it does not cause harm to other sapient beings or undue suffering to non-sapient living beings. Surely you can see how these clauses contradict?"

Neville: Clause Five never mentions WA law, though, and it was never intended to apply to WA law, only to domestic law. What's illegal under WA law stays illegal under WA law. However, I agree that this should be clarified, which I shall get to right away.

All that is if Clause Five actually requires anything. Your nation may choose to consider that to be the case, and that's their loss, but I think you'll find that most nations consider 'request' and 'recommend' to be practically synonymous. If that isn't the case then I'll personally pay the salaries of the entire Excidian delegation, including yours.

It is quite clear Blackbourne, for all his effort, has completely lost control of the show. Schultz continues:
"I don't see why any delegation would think that, since recommend and request are not synonyms in any dictionary or thesaurus I have ever seen. Request is to ask for something, and recommend is to put forward a suggestion or endorsement. Requests are almost always phrased as questions, recommendations are statements, and can only be phrased as questions when the questions are rhetorical. That alone should show that they are not synonyms: Ask and Commend are not synonyms, but ask is a synonym of request and commend is a synonym of recommend."

Neville: Wait, you're seriously arguing over the difference between asking and recommending? If you're going to be this pedantic then I have a solution for that. (gets out pen)

"This is why Ambassadors should write the resolutions." Schultz remarks..

Neville: Very well. I have asked Ambassador Souldream to make a few modifications to the proposal. Hopefully, this draft should be more acceptable to the Excidians. We'll leave it here for a day so that Ambassadors can point out any typos, then we'll submit this for the consideration of all member states. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go to the dry cleaners. (exits)

Rowan: You just left me to the dogs, man! Ah, well. This draft is perfect anyway. Any questions?

OOC: After typing out that fake draft, I'm now beginning to question my sanity.

[Araraukar]

OOC: After typing out that fake draft, I'm now beginning to question my sanity.

OOC: Getting thrown into the Reflecting Pool and now questioning your own sanity? I feel like I should start chanting "One of us! One of us! One of us!"

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: After typing out that fake draft, I'm now beginning to question my sanity.

OOC: Getting thrown into the Reflecting Pool and now questioning your own sanity? I feel like I should start chanting "One of us! One of us! One of us!"

OOC: Oh, for Pete's sake, isn't there a newbie you should be TG-ing?

[Tahkranul]

Schultz frowns. She turns to look at Blackbourne. "Now?"

Blackbourne stares. He doesn't look happy either, but he seems reluctant to agree with Schultz.

"It's a General Assembly tradition. We have to bring it to the next generation of Ambassadors." Schultz explains.

"Alright. But only because I value tradition and our own honor." Blackbourne relents.

The two walk up to Neville, grab him by the arms and legs, and together, they throw him out the nearest window into the Reflecting Pool. I hear it is quite lovely this time of year.

Este, having just poured herself a tall glass of water while observing the debate and perusing referenced resolutions, nearly does a spit-take at this.
"Wait -- what?"
To no one in particular she mutters, "I suppose I'll have to start wearing swimwear under my dresses from now on. Talk about enforcing civil discourse."