[DRAFT]Fight Against Islamophobia

[Highlock]

In these times and days, Islamophobia is a constant and recurring issue, even in the world of NationStates. This proposal aims to limit this terrible form of discrimination and religious segregation by criminalising it and appropriately labeling it a hate crime. This is still just a draft. Comments about the structure and phrasing of the proposal is more than welcome, however please do refrain from derrogatory commentary or reasons why the principle behind the proposal is wrong; it is up to the General Assembly to decide.

The General Assembly,

Defining Islamophobia as a fear against the practice of Islam, and subsequent discrimination of the Muslim community

Noting the large number of Islamophobic states and regions

Also noting their harm on surrounding predominantly Muslim states and regions

Concerned that Islamophobia is becoming more and more acceptable in certain regions of the world

Disappointed at the lack of collected effort against this terrible form of discrimination and religious segregation

Recognizing that Islam is a religion based on peaceful intentions

Reminding that the freedom of religion and belief is a basic human right

Disgusted at the public tendency to relate Islam to terrorism

The General Assembly hereby;


I. Recognizes Islamophobia as a direct offense to human and civil rights

II. Forbids any Islamophobic actions, or ones that specifically harm the Muslim community

III. Recognizes any Islamophobic actions, or ones that specifically harm the Muslim community, as punishable hate crime

IV. Requires all member states to refrain from religious segregation of any sorts, Muslim or otherwise

V. Also requires all member states to refrain from enforcing any religion against their people's will

[Tinhampton]

• Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: So, you've written a resolution to punish Islamophobia as a hate crime. However, there is no definition of Islamophobia, nor is there protection for any other religion (or for no religion - such as atheism or agnosticism) against hatred. A good start, but could be...
• Jamie Williamson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Hold it right there! Doesn't GA#35, the Charter of Civil Rights¹, prohibit discrimination based on religion?
• D-A Smith: You make a good point there, Jamie...

¹: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=414#p414. Article 1c.

[Highlock]

• Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: So, you've written a resolution to punish Islamophobia as a hate crime. However, there is no definition of Islamophobia, nor is there protection for any other religion (or for no religion - such as atheism or agnosticism) against hatred. A good start, but could be...
• Jamie Williamson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Hold it right there! Doesn't GA#35, the Charter of Civil Rights¹, prohibit discrimination based on religion?
• D-A Smith: You make a good point there, Jamie...

¹: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=414#p414. Article 1c.

Thank you very much for your helpfull input! I have made some modifications accordingly. I would also like to clarify that the focus on Islamophobia is due to an overly present fear and hatrid against Islam. I wish not to single out Islam amongst other religions. Please do understand my noble intentions.

I fear that if this draft were to be intitled "Fight Against Religious Segregation", and the focus on Islamophobia was replaced with a broader term involving all religions, people might argue (quite horribly) that they do not recognize Islam as a religion, and therefore escape the charges against hate crime. May I ask your opinion on this matter? Many thanks in advance

[Grays Harbor]

*sigh*

NS is not USA. Don't assume that.

[Highlock]

*sigh*

NS is not USA. Don't assume that.

*sigh*

Islamophobia is present in MANY areas of the world.
Also, take a look at the amount of Islamophobic states and regions in NS.

[Calladan]

*sigh*

NS is not USA. Don't assume that.

*sigh*

Islamophobia is present in MANY areas of the world.
Also, take a look at the amount of Islamophobic states and regions in NS.

"III. Recognizes any Islamophobic actions, or ones that specifically harm the Muslim community, as punishable hate crime"

This is remarkably wide ranging definition that could be open to all sorts of abuse.

Recently, a council in District 17 refused permission for a Mosque to be built at a given site. Not because they didn't want a Mosque there, or because they had anything against Islam or anything against Muslims, but because the site was not suitable for a public building.

However, that could EASILY been seen as an Islamophobic action under your definition because a) it harms the Muslim community in that area (by not letting them have a Mosque where they wanted it) and b) it clearly only targets Muslims (because it refused permission for the Mosque).

So we would have to take that to court as a hate crime, even though the moment it got to court it would be thrown out because clearly the council was not doing it out of any desire to be Islamophobic but because they had to follow the rules and regulations set up for planning permission.

In addition, there are times when various companies, organisations and so forth require certain standards of dress, behaviour and so forth from EVERYONE (regardless of their religious beliefs or any other beliefs) simply for reasons of safety, health and security. And while every effort is made to accommodate the beliefs of everyone involved, we are not willing to compromise the basic health and safety requirements that would put people's lives at risk.

So if we do require something that is seen as an anti-Islamic act (nothing springs to mind off the top off my head) simply because we do not want to put the life of the person in question, or anyone they work with, at risk, are we going to be answerable for that act under this proposal? Or will there be some boundaries of common sense built in?

And finally - if this resolution passes, how long before we get other religions demanding resolutions of their own? Until it is no longer safe to do anything because you can't risk offending anyone?

To be clear - I have no desire to offend Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists or anyone else who has strong beliefs about things. But the simple truth is you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. And I can not believe that The World Assembly, given how much it believes in tolerance and equality and general niceness to other people, doesn't have a resolution that covers what you are trying to do with this already.

If someone says "All Muslims should be nailed to crosses and set on fire" then of course something should be done about it and I would imagine most member states have laws dealing with that already. And if they don't then I would imagine this proposal would not go down well with them and they would vote against it, cite National Sovereignty and quite possibly resign if it passed.

But if you try to punish every perceived of anti-Islamic behaviour, you are going to end up with member states tying up the courts with the most petty, ridiculous court cases imaginable, most of which will be thrown out by the judiciary of the said countries almost at once.

I applaud your ideals, but I am not certain this is the way to achieve them.

[Araraukar]

What are Simlam and- Oh, the superstitions they call religions? Well, that explains the insanity then.

However, why should Suslims or whatever they're called be given special rights over people with other superstitions? Also, there's that freedom of speech thing, too, which some people around here argue doesn't allow the curbing of hate speech, even though the resolutions in question clearly allows them to do that... However, requiring them to do so might contradict that particular resolution.

(OOC: Araraukar is an atheist nation, Janis isn't being disrespective of Island and Muslims in particular - you can post something like this for any major religion and she'll do the same. )

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Araraukar is an atheist nation, Janis isn't being disrespective of Island and Muslims in particular - you can post something like this for any major religion and she'll do the same.

(emphasis mine)

We all know that you're not being unrelated to each of two or more people or things in regards to sub-continental landmasses surrounded by water, but that has nothing to do with the topic.

Also, I can't believe that I'm the first to point out that this proposal is a Real-World Violation.

[Jarish Inyo]

What's a hate crime? We have never heard of such a crime in the Empire?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: This would be either Meta-gaming (reference to Islam & Islamophobia as parts of some nations' RP, and thus requiring other players to recognise that RP as canonical) or RL references, and in either case would be 'illegal' under GA rules.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This would be either Meta-gaming (reference to Islam & Islamophobia as parts of some nations' RP, and thus requiring other players to recognise that RP as canonical)

OOC: Which isn't currently forbidden by the rules for some weird reason. I don't know if using major RL religions would count as RL reference either, my memory vaguely suggests to Xtianity being deemed to not be a violation by a mod in the past, but that might've been a personal opinion of said mod and overruled by an official ruling. Just can't remember clearly enough...

*snip*

OOC: Yes yes, very funny, typos happen, cba fix.