[IN QUEUE] Family and Religion

[Linux and the X]

Did you read what I posted? The government is not deciding or saying anything. At all. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. The child, and I'll say this yet again, makes the decision.

If the state was not deciding or saying anything, it would be up to parents if their child has a choice or not. The state is saying something. It is making a decision on the proper upbringing of a child. The fact that you call this a 'freedom' does not make it any less of a state intervention.

So if I attempt to force you to attend my church, and the government stops me, this is government intervention? Well, of course. But isn't that something the government should intervene in?

[Glen-Rhodes]

So if I attempt to force you to attend my church, and the government stops me, this is government intervention? Well, of course. But isn't that something the government should intervene in?

No, it isn't. You only think it is because you frame the argument with this idea of coercion, as if passing along tradition is the equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Linux and the X]

So if I attempt to force you to attend my church, and the government stops me, this is government intervention? Well, of course. But isn't that something the government should intervene in?

No, it isn't. You only think it is because you frame the argument with this idea of coercion, as if passing along tradition is the equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

- Dr. B. Castro

Again, there are two possible interpretations of this: that it protects the right to "pass along tradition" and that it allows coercion. The right to pass along tradition is already protected, so under that interpretation this is illegal as duplication. Therefore, the other interpretation, that it allows coercion, must be correct.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The right to pass along tradition is already protected...

How is it already protected?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Linux and the X]

The right to pass along tradition is already protected...

How is it already protected?

- Dr. B. Castro

That would be GAR#30, Freedom of Expression, which "[a]ffirms the right of all people to express their [...] religious and ideological views freely and openly". This is not something newly revealed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That would be GAR#30, Freedom of Expression, which "[a]ffirms the right of all people to express their [...] religious and ideological views freely and openly". This is not something newly revealed.

That does not entail the passing of traditions, unless a nation wishes it to do so.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Embolalia]

That would be GAR#30, Freedom of Expression, which "[a]ffirms the right of all people to express their [...] religious and ideological views freely and openly". This is not something newly revealed.

That does not entail the passing of traditions, unless a nation wishes it to do so.

Uh, what? How so? How else would one pass without expressing?

So if I attempt to force you to attend my church, and the government stops me, this is government intervention? Well, of course. But isn't that something the government should intervene in?

No, it isn't. You only think it is because you frame the argument with this idea of coercion, as if passing along tradition is the equivalent of ethnic cleansing.

Are you not "framing" it the exclude that possibility? We're focusing on that because it's the biggest problem with the proposal. There may or may not be other merits, but the fact of the matter is that it has this problem.

Because children aren't people. Right. Freedom only applies to adults. Children don't get to have a choice in anything, no matter what, ever, because they're simply the property of their owners parents.

For the most part, yes.

And here we have the basis of your problem. We have a fundamental disagreement as to what children are. I happen to think they are human (or at least sentient). You think they're chattel. With all due respect, that is the most despicable thing I have ever heard from the mouth of any otherwise respectable ambassador.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Uh, what? How so? How else would one pass without expressing?

Expression does not entail passing along traditions, in the most literal sense. It entails expression. Hence why that resolution does not already protect passing traditions along to children, unless nations so choose to reach that conclusion themselves.

Are you not "framing" it the exclude that possibility? We're focusing on that because it's the biggest problem with the proposal. There may or may not be other merits, but the fact of the matter is that it has this problem.

No, I'm not framing anything. I'm saying it like it is, without using colorful and suggestive language. I'm not the one describing the issue as parents 'forcing' their children to attend religious services. Framing is using specific language to describe something in your favor, which the opponents of this resolution are doing rather excessively. I am simply saying that it's no great travesty that parents might not give their child a choice in going to church. I am simply saying that the government has no businesses getting involved either way.

And here we have the basis of your problem. We have a fundamental disagreement as to what children are. I happen to think they are human (or at least sentient). You think they're chattel. With all due respect, that is the most despicable thing I have ever heard from the mouth of any otherwise respectable ambassador.

I don't think children have all the same rights and freedoms that adults do. This is a very common, practical, and essential concept. This does not mean I am some immoral, evil, child-hating bigot.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Quelesh]

I've never said that I object to parents "introducing their children to their religious traditions." I don't know where you got that. What I do object to is parents compelling their children to practice their [the parents'] religious traditions. It is a legitimate function of the state (at least in Quelesh) to prevent parents from doing this.

Well, fancy that. Nothing in this proposal would require you to change a thing then. Precisely where is your point then?

Please keep in mind that the law means what the law says. Intentions and mindsets are meaningless unless written into the proposal/resolution text itself.

This proposal never would have directly affected Quelesh, even in the beginning, because it only refers to "legal guardians," which we do not have. When I initially began arguing against the proposal, I did so in order to protect other nations that do legally recognize guardianship from having to strip rights from their young citizens. With a change that was made to the proposal before submission, it can be interpreted in such a way that it would have no effect whatsoever (a simple duplication of GAR30). That fact alone (that the proposal has no effect) would justify opposition.

However, I do oppose it as well based upon "intentions and mindsets." The operative clauses, upon favorable interpretation, may not actually mandate any change, but the preambulatory clauses written into the law do have symbolic meaning. Those preambulatory clauses, illustrating the intent of the author, could not be enforced by a court of law because the operative clauses do not back them up, but they have symbolic meaning nonetheless, a meaning that states that children have no freedom of religion. I oppose etching that meaning, even symbolically, into international law.

What I was talking about was the child deciding on his or her own whether or not to partake in religious activities and, if both the child and the state so desire, being backed by the state in that decision. The child is the impetus for the backing; the child is the ultimate decision-maker. Why is that wrong?

Because that is still the state saying what the proper upbringing of a child should be. I don't see what any government anywhere needs to get involved in the religious decisions of anybody, or why it's even a problem that parents are passing along religious tradition. Your whole idea is simply a well-veiled attack on religious freedom. That freedom also entails not being persecuted for bringing up your own child into your own religious tradition.

Of course, parents will not, and should not, be persecuted for passing along their religious tradition. They will be "persecuted," however, for compelling their children to practice that religious tradition. Do you equate the government ensuring that every citizen has religious choice with that government "getting involved in the religious decisions" of those citizens?

The state "says what the proper upbringing of a child should be" in many respects. Children should not be beaten or raped by their parents, for example. The government is perfectly justified in enforcing this because every person, child or adult, has the right to not be beaten or raped. Likewise, every person, child or adult, has the right to choose his or her own religious belief and practice, and the government is similarly justified in ensuring that its citizens are able to exercise this right.

Because children aren't people. Right. Freedom only applies to adults. Children don't get to have a choice in anything, no matter what, ever, because they're simply the property of their owners parents.

For the most part, yes.

I think this is the root of our disagreement. The culture of my nation, and of many others, recognizes the independent rights of children, and we do not appreciate being told that we should change this. Perhaps the citizens of Glen-Rhodes see children as mere chattel slaves, but the people of Quelesh do not.

I am simply saying that it's no great travesty that parents might not give their child a choice in going to church.

And I am saying that it is. We are at loggerheads, then.

[Embolalia]

No, I'm not framing anything. I'm saying it like it is, without using colorful and suggestive language. I'm not the one describing the issue as parents 'forcing' their children to attend religious services. Framing is using specific language to describe something in your favor, which the opponents of this resolution are doing rather excessively. I am simply saying that it's no great travesty that parents might not give their child a choice in going to church. I am simply saying that the government has no businesses getting involved either way.

Whether you believe it or not, and whether you say it or not, this proposal would force nations to allow parents to force their children into religious activities. It's inescapable. In fact, that's exactly what the whole point of the proposal is. You can replace "force" with compel, coerce, constrain, dragoon, drive, enforce, exact, hustle, impel, make, oblige, put the arm on, put the chill on, require, shotgun, squeeze, turn on the heat, urge, or any other synonym you like. It's still the same problem. Let's restate, just to show that:
This proposal would make nations allow parents to make their children participate in religious activities. It's inescapable. In fact, that's exactly what the whole point of the proposal is.
And since the sane among us realize that children are people too, we disagree with that. (Incidentally, you are "using specific language to describe something in your favor". It's kind of hard to make a point otherwise.)

[Mousebumples]

Whether you believe it or not, and whether you say it or not, this proposal would force nations to allow parents to force their children into religious activities. It's inescapable. In fact, that's exactly what the whole point of the proposal is. You can replace "force" with compel, coerce, constrain, dragoon, drive, enforce, exact, hustle, impel, make, oblige, put the arm on, put the chill on, require, shotgun, squeeze, turn on the heat, urge, or any other synonym you like. It's still the same problem. Let's restate, just to show that:
This proposal would make nations allow parents to make their children participate in religious activities. It's inescapable. In fact, that's exactly what the whole point of the proposal is.
And since the sane among us realize that children are people too, we disagree with that. (Incidentally, you are "using specific language to describe something in your favor". It's kind of hard to make a point otherwise)

Please quote the relevant portion of the proposal that states that parents can force/compel participation.

As the Secretariat is fond of saying: The law is what the law says.

[Embolalia]

You're right. I used the wrong word. The point still stands. This proposal would mean that children would not be able to (or more literally, that the state would not be able to enact laws ensuring that children would be able to) choose their own religion without punitive results from their parents. This proposal means that parents could (or that states could not make laws such that parents could not) punish their children for not believing in a certain religion. And perhaps that is not the intended goal, but it is a glaringly obvious effect. Really, it's the only possible way that the proposal could be made into law. Please, tell me how I'm wrong.

[Turtatalia]

You're right. I used the wrong word. The point still stands. This proposal would mean that children would not be able to (or more literally, that the state would not be able to enact laws ensuring that children would be able to) choose their own religion without punitive results from their parents. This proposal means that parents could (or that states could not make laws such that parents could not) punish their children for not believing in a certain religion. And perhaps that is not the intended goal, but it is a glaringly obvious effect. Really, it's the only possible way that the proposal could be made into law. Please, tell me how I'm wrong.

I would like to contribute more to this debate, but OOC: I'm feeling a bit under the weather (ill)

[Mousebumples]

Please, tell me how I'm wrong.

Gladly!

You said:

This proposal would mean that children would not be able to (or more literally, that the state would not be able to enact laws ensuring that children would be able to) choose their own religion without punitive results from their parents. This proposal means that parents could (or that states could not make laws such that parents could not) punish their children for not believing in a certain religion. And perhaps that is not the intended goal, but it is a glaringly obvious effect. Really, it's the only possible way that the proposal could be made into law.

Let's break the action clauses of the proposal into pieces, shall we?

MANDATES ... the right of legal guardians to peacefully transmit the knowledge and practice of their religion, faith, belief, or philosophy, [and] the right of legal wards to participate in the religious, faith, belief, or philosophical practices of their guardians ...

(I slightly edited the phrasing of this clause so that it is not stated in the negative. I believe it's much clearer this way. Point being, the rights stated above will not be infringed upon by the state.)

One key part of that clause is the lovely word "peacefully," which appears to have been missed by many members of the opposition. You speak of "punitive results," which is a fancy way of saying "punishments." Some punishments certainly can be peaceful - although some of the hyperbolic examples I've seen listed in this thread (and the repeal thread) by other ambassadors may be peaceful but they would likely contradict other WA law. And, of course there's this lovely part of the proposal that follows:

DECLARES that these rights shall not be so construed as to deny other rights enumerated by W.A. legislation that are enjoyed by all nationals, regardless of age, nor to deny States the authority to protect such rights.

As this states that there will be no denial of previously existing rights afforded to individuals (i.e. children) in WA law, let's have a look at the Child Protection Act, shall we?

Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation, Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,

Which, that's great. Basically it states that all children would be subject to whatever horrors you're envisioning would come to pass should this proposal become a resolution - so any reference to a child in this resolution's text can be used to argue against things that cannot happen as a result of this proposal's passage.

Secondly, this clause seems to cover the rest of your concerns:

1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child
a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused
b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

You're making claims of things that parents can do that could be considered emotional abuse. At least, I presume that your concerns over "forced religion" (or whatever you want to call it) stem from the fact that children may be psychologically harmed.

Unless you are planning a repeal of "Child Protection Act," your concerns are illogical under current WA law. Should a parent partake in any of the terrible practices that are being bandied about this forum as a result of this proposal's passage, they would likely be investigated under accusations of child abuse. Should the investigation bear fruit, I expect that the child (or children) would be removed from their parents' home, in accordance with national law.

Sincerely yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
Delegate for Monkey Island

[The Floridian Coast]

We oppose this legislation. One of the duties of our Department of Social Welfare is to rescue children from brainwashing, indoctrinating cults, and we strongly reject the WA telling us that we cannot defend our secular values in full.

[Embolalia]

Please, tell me how I'm wrong.

Gladly!

You said:

This proposal would mean that children would not be able to (or more literally, that the state would not be able to enact laws ensuring that children would be able to) choose their own religion without punitive results from their parents. This proposal means that parents could (or that states could not make laws such that parents could not) punish their children for not believing in a certain religion. And perhaps that is not the intended goal, but it is a glaringly obvious effect. Really, it's the only possible way that the proposal could be made into law.

Let's break the action clauses of the proposal into pieces, shall we?

MANDATES ... the right of legal guardians to peacefully transmit the knowledge and practice of their religion, faith, belief, or philosophy, [and] the right of legal wards to participate in the religious, faith, belief, or philosophical practices of their guardians ...

(I slightly edited the phrasing of this clause so that it is not stated in the negative. I believe it's much clearer this way. Point being, the rights stated above will not be infringed upon by the state.)

One key part of that clause is the lovely word "peacefully," which appears to have been missed by many members of the opposition. You speak of "punitive results," which is a fancy way of saying "punishments." Some punishments certainly can be peaceful - although some of the hyperbolic examples I've seen listed in this thread (and the repeal thread) by other ambassadors may be peaceful but they would likely contradict other WA law. And, of course there's this lovely part of the proposal that follows:

DECLARES that these rights shall not be so construed as to deny other rights enumerated by W.A. legislation that are enjoyed by all nationals, regardless of age, nor to deny States the authority to protect such rights.

As this states that there will be no denial of previously existing rights afforded to individuals (i.e. children) in WA law, let's have a look at the Child Protection Act, shall we?

Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation, Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,

Which, that's great. Basically it states that all children would be subject to whatever horrors you're envisioning would come to pass should this proposal become a resolution - so any reference to a child in this resolution's text can be used to argue against things that cannot happen as a result of this proposal's passage.

Secondly, this clause seems to cover the rest of your concerns:

1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child
a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused
b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

You're making claims of things that parents can do that could be considered emotional abuse. At least, I presume that your concerns over "forced religion" (or whatever you want to call it) stem from the fact that children may be psychologically harmed.

Unless you are planning a repeal of "Child Protection Act," your concerns are illogical under current WA law. Should a parent partake in any of the terrible practices that are being bandied about this forum as a result of this proposal's passage, they would likely be investigated under accusations of child abuse. Should the investigation bear fruit, I expect that the child (or children) would be removed from their parents' home, in accordance with national law.

Sincerely yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
Delegate for Monkey Island

Let's say you have two kids. One's a believer, the other isn't. Is it emotionally abusive to buy the believer slightly more expensive Christmahanaramakadanaquanzaa presents? What about sending the believer to a better school? Feeding the believer better food? Paying for the believer's college, but not the non-believer? There's a line somewhere. Anything up to that line would be permissible under this proposal.
Here's a question: If the parents' religion forbids homosexuality, and the "philosophical identity" of the home is that homosexuality is an abomination, what happens if the parents have a gay kid? Under this, they would have the right to have that "philosophical identity". Just say how much gay people are terrible sinners. Not you, dear. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that. What, officer? No, I'm not emotionally abusing him. I'm professing my philosophical identity!
Here's another question, coming at it from the opposite side: Is professing a philosophical or religious identity to someone who doesn't agree to it, being insistent upon it, telling them every night how much you believe in this religious identity - Could that be child abuse? If it is, or could be considered that, this resolution is either contradictory or pointless.

[Mousebumples]

Here's another question, coming at it from the opposite side: Is professing a philosophical or religious identity to someone who doesn't agree to it, being insistent upon it, telling them every night how much you believe in this religious identity - Could that be child abuse? If it is, or could be considered that, this resolution is either contradictory or pointless.

Or not plausible under passed WA law.

Your exceptions are cute - bribery, preferential treatment of children, etc. However, I don't see why some of them could not be construed as abuse and/or why children could not petition for emancipation - or whatever your nation calls it within your borders.

National law can certainly fill in some of the blanks here, and national governments will certainly affect enforcement, to some extent. Should the practices you mention be outlawed? Perhaps. Is there anything currently outlawing them as WA law is currently written? Per your loose interpretation of Child Protection Act, apparently not. You have control over your own children in your own borders (within the confines of existing law) - use that control. Pass national laws to protect them, if that's where your concerns lie. Or, hell, write an additional proposal that would cover the loopholes within CPA.

[Kryozerkia]

As many of the esteemed delegates here are aware, there was a request for the Secretariat to review the proposal to determine the legality of it based on resolutions #30 and #35 to determine if there was a potential conflict or duplication. The Secretariat and their loyal lawyers have taken the time to carefully review the proposal and discuss it before reaching a conclusion. The Secretariat comes before the body today with the finding of our review and the fate of the Family and Religion proposal has achieved quorum and is about a day away from going to vote.

There has been a long battle between both sides to determine the necessity of this and the delegates overwhelmingly have demonstrated civility and respect for each other while still holding different opinions on the matter. However, in at the end of the day, the question of legality can only be settled by the Secretariat.

The fate of the proposal is this: it is illegal. Therefore, it will be removed from queue.

The proposal was determined to be too vague for the strength (significant) that it was given. For the strength to be justified, it would have had to contain stronger, more directed language to enforce the rights it would have been granting. That, however, is not the sole reason why it is illegal. It was further determined that it duplicates resolutions #30 and #35.

Collectively, the two resolutions effectively protect the religious rights of the citizens of member nations. The language of these resolutions implicitly allows for the transmission of religious knowledge (Freedom of Expression) and the right to practice and not be discriminated against (Charter of Civil Rights).

The notable provision from resolution #30--

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;

--already allows for people to express their religious views. In this way, the parents/guardians would be able to pass their religion down to their offspring, while allowing their offspring to be afforded the same rights to expressing their personal beliefs, even if those beliefs do not conform with the parents'/guardians'.

There is of course a clause that allows for reasonable restrictions and calls upon governments not to abuse those restrictions. In this way, parents would still be fully permitted to transmit (peacefully) their religion to their offspring.

Since resolution #35 was also a point of contention, we will demonstrate how it is covered. These clauses in particular are worth noting:

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

These two clauses cover ALL inhabitants of member nations, which include children. It also covers adults and their right to pass their religion onto their children. All creeds receive equal treatment under this law.

These points aside, we come to the last element of this proposal, the parents as the primary and foremost protectors of the interest of the child.

It's already implicit in existing proposals that the WA believes parents are generally better protectors than the State, because of this: on both health and education, and less directly in the child labour law, the WA has explicitly described the occasions when the State may intervene between parent and child or overrule a parental decision. All other health and education decisions are not defined; implicitly, the WA leaves parenting up to the parents, except when it says "thus far and no further".

Applying that precedent to another parenting decision, religion, the WA's role should be to say "these are the circumstances in which the State may intervene". The generalised opinion "parents are better protectors" is too broad for legislation that can be enacted and enforced. It belongs in the CoCR, or perhaps in a "Charter of Parental Rights". Essentially, all this proposal does is state "we are in favour of family values".

The Secretariat yields the floor.

[Eireann Fae]

The fate of the proposal is this: it is illegal. Therefore, it will be removed from queue.

Rowan smiles broadly, and Episky begins flying quick circles around the girl from the ground up, showering her in beautiful luminescent Faerie dust. When she reaches the girl's face, the Faerie Emissary gives her a quick kiss on the nose.

[Glen-Rhodes]

These two clauses cover ALL inhabitants of member nations, which include children. It also covers adults and their right to pass their religion onto their children. All creeds receive equal treatment under this law.

I hope 'the Secretariat' isn't subscribing to utterly illogical and incoherent idea that the Charter's equal protection clause 'includes protection from being forced to participate in religious activities,' because that would completely overturn the meaning of the entire legal principle of equal protection.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Kryozerkia]

These two clauses cover ALL inhabitants of member nations, which include children. It also covers adults and their right to pass their religion onto their children. All creeds receive equal treatment under this law.

I hope 'the Secretariat' isn't subscribing to utterly illogical and incoherent idea that the Charter's equal protection clause 'includes protection from being forced to participate in religious activities,' because that would completely overturn the meaning of the entire legal principle of equal protection.

- Dr. B. Castro

No, we mean equal protection when it comes to the right to practice and the right to express and pass on one's faith to their children without state intervention.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, we mean equal protection when it comes to the right to practice and the right to express and pass on one's faith to their children without state intervention.

Okay. I am fine with this, so long as it's being said that Freedom of Expression grants parents the right to pass along religious tradition.

[Kryozerkia]

No, we mean equal protection when it comes to the right to practice and the right to express and pass on one's faith to their children without state intervention.

Okay. I am fine with this, so long as it's being said that Freedom of Expression grants parents the right to pass along religious tradition.

If it didn't, then there wouldn't have been an issue with duplication.

[SchutteGod]

Well, this is lame. Freedom of Expression is obviously written with the intent to cover what people can say in public (hence the emphasis on "available media"), not what parents can teach children in private...and GA30 certainly doesn't restrict the right of the state to require children to be educated in, say, madrasahs, over the parents' objections. To me this appears to be a weird Moderation attempt to please everyone, by removing the objectionable proposal, but saying the rights it protects are already covered elsewhere. And I carry no delusions that the opponents of this resolution are going to cease compelling children and neighbors to report "spiritual abuse", just because some mod thinks GA30 has broad-reaching implications that cover nearly everything anyone says anywhere, not merely in forums where they can be arrested or censored.

But I do know that if we keep making sweeping assumptions of what GA30 and Charter on Civil Rights protect, and remove any proposals that "duplicate" these inferred rights in even the remotest sense, we will soon not be able to legislate additional personal or political freedoms at all.

[Eireann Fae]

Well, this is lame. Freedom of Expression is obviously written with the intent to cover what people can say in public (hence the emphasis on "available media"), not what parents can teach children in private...

"First of all, are you really trying to say that parents are currently allowed to preach in the streets, but not allowed to teach of their religion in the privacy of their own homes? Why does 'available media' only include public media in your mind?"

But I do know that if we keep making sweeping assumptions of what GA30 and Charter on Civil Rights protect, and remove any proposals that "duplicate" these inferred rights in even the remotest sense, we will soon not be able to legislate additional personal or political freedoms at all.

"What the proposed resolution did was attempt to legislate restrictions on personal freedom, not provide additional freedoms. The freedoms in question already existed."