[PASSED] Protection of Apostates

[Adezku]

Moving forwards and into view of the other delegates, the tall figure of the World Assembly Representative of the Grand Duchy of Adezku, Baron Zakharin Makarovich, cleared his throat. Stroking the long, greying-black beard that reached to his midriff, he eventually began speaking:

"While His Royal Highness Dimitri III Sudakov, Grand Duke of All Adezku, Count of Velikiy, Count of Knyaz, etc, etc, is firmly entrenched within and dedicated to the Adezkan faith, and would wish His entire realm be united in piety, He and His minister for Foreign Affairs recognise also that all those who have left their faith for one reason or another are deserving of the right to practice this freely and in peace. It is for this reason that the Grand Duchy of Adezku will support the proposal of the Right Honourable Dame vyn Nysen."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: Exceptions in clause 4 need words "such as" added, as currently would not allow police in, if they were not "armed forces" which usually means guns. Using "such as" would allow authorities of many kinds that would in RL be required to be allowed into a church but which would be too long a list to put in the proposal.

OOC: Added "such as" before "by" in that clause!

Moving forwards and into view of the other delegates, the tall figure of the World Assembly Representative of the Grand Duchy of Adezku, Baron Zakharin Makarovich, cleared his throat. Stroking the long, greying-black beard that reached to his midriff, he eventually began speaking:

"While His Royal Highness Dimitri III Sudakov, Grand Duke of All Adezku, Count of Velikiy, Count of Knyaz, etc, etc, is firmly entrenched within and dedicated to the Adezkan faith, and would wish His entire realm be united in piety, He and His minister for Foreign Affairs recognise also that all those who have left their faith for one reason or another are deserving of the right to practice this freely and in peace. It is for this reason that the Grand Duchy of Adezku will support the proposal of the Right Honourable Dame vyn Nysen."

Maria vyn Nysen took note of the representative, smiled cordially and approached him. "It is good to see you again, my dear Baron Makarovich. Your support is most welcome, and it gladdens both our delegation as well as myself personally to see that nations with a strong sense of religiousness have been expressing their support of the rights that this proposal intends to grant. Thank you, Representative."

[Deacarsia]

I strongly oppose this proposal.

[Tinhampton]

9. Requires that member states enforce the articles of this resolution in a manner that entices compliance, or that inspires deterrence regarding non-compliance with the content of this legislation.

As far as I know, this clause was included in the first draft of your proposal to avoid concerns that it would be deemed illegal for not actually requiring anything of member states. Why does it persist in the current draft, given the existence of Article 2 (which "[r]equires that member states treat apostasy as a legal act within their national jurisdictions")?

[Daarwyrth]

I strongly oppose this proposal.

Vyn Nysen: "And why is that, Ambassador?"

9. Requires that member states enforce the articles of this resolution in a manner that entices compliance, or that inspires deterrence regarding non-compliance with the content of this legislation.

As far as I know, this clause was included in the first draft of your proposal to avoid concerns that it would be deemed illegal for not actually requiring anything of member states. Why does it persist in the current draft, given the existence of Article 2 (which "[r]equires that member states treat apostasy as a legal act within their national jurisdictions")?

OOC: A good catch! I believe it can indeed be safely removed at this point, and I'll do so first thing in the morning!

[Deacarsia]

I strongly oppose this proposal.

Vyn Nysen: "And why is that, Ambassador?"

Thank you for asking, my lady.

I oppose this proposal:

1. Firstly, because I see this as an excessive intrusion upon national sovereignty. A variety of nations are confessional or theocratic in nature, and it would be inconsistent with many of their societies and governments to be restricted from dealing with heresy, apostasy, and schism in such manner as they see fit.
   
2. Secondly, my own nation, the Kingdom of Deacarsia, itself is a traditional Catholic confessional state, with various legal measures and sanctions taken to enforce religious orthodoxy throughout our society, and thus it would be thoroughly inconsistent with our values to take any other stance than one of strong opposition to this proposal.
   
3. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of the World Assembly extends across space, time, and dimensions to all nations which assent to join it, and this proposal in my opinion is far to broad in scope to consider reasonably all the relevant possible areas in which it might be applied, if even it were an appropiate proposal at all.
   
4. Finally, because in general I dislike the World Assembly meddling with the internal affairs of member nations, regardless of the nature of such interventions. The World Assembly is meant to be an organization to promote peace by faciliating diplomacy between nations and by providing a neutral forum to facilitate international interactions, not an international leviathan that regulates all the affairs of its various members.

I hope that I have summarized my reasoning in a succinct and understandable manner, but please feel free to ask any questions or for any clarifications regarding any point.

[Herby]

Finally, because in general I dislike the World Assembly meddling with the internal affairs of member nations, regardless of the nature of such interventions. The World Assembly is meant to be an organization to promote peace by faciliating diplomacy between nations and by providing a neutral forum to facilitate international interactions, not an international leviathan that regulates all the affairs of its various members.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wait you was serious about that? Pfffffffft. Peace. I hate the word.

[Daarwyrth]

Finally, because in general I dislike the World Assembly meddling with the internal affairs of member nations, regardless of the nature of such interventions. The World Assembly is meant to be an organization to promote peace by faciliating diplomacy between nations and by providing a neutral forum to facilitate international interactions, not an international leviathan that regulates all the affairs of its various members.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh wait you was serious about that? Pfffffffft. Peace. I hate the word.

OOC: I believe you misquoted in your post. Your quote should quote Deacarsia, not me

[Tinhampton]

As far as I know, this clause was included in the first draft of your proposal to avoid concerns that it would be deemed illegal for not actually requiring anything of member states. Why does it persist in the current draft, given the existence of Article 2 (which "[r]equires that member states treat apostasy as a legal act within their national jurisdictions")?

OOC: A good catch! I believe it can indeed be safely removed at this point, and I'll do so first thing in the morning!

This proposal has been submitted without Article 9 having been excised.

[Daarwyrth]

This proposal has been submitted without Article 9 having been excised.

OOC: An oversight on my part that I should have caught, yes. However, as the campaign TG had been sent before you reminded me - and I believe (or better said hope) it isn't a dealbreaker - I'll keep it as is to not spam people with multiple campaign TGs. My apologies for the oversight, either way!

[Trellania]

"Opposed due to Article 9. That is confusingly-worded enough I'm pretty certain we would be in noncompliance no matter what we did."

[Daarwyrth]

"Opposed due to Article 9. That is confusingly-worded enough I'm pretty certain we would be in noncompliance no matter what we did."

Vyn Nysen: "That is not true, Ambassador. Clause 9 merely demands compliance in enforcing the articles of this resolution, which your nation would already be forced to do. Compliance can either be enticed by positive means, or through deterring means such as punishment. It is up to member states to determine which they choose to apply, which should not be confusing at all.

And even if Clause 9 had been excised from the draft, the rule would apply to your nation just the same. It merely is explicitly repeated in this resolution."

[Trellania]

"Opposed due to Article 9. That is confusingly-worded enough I'm pretty certain we would be in noncompliance no matter what we did."

Vyn Nysen: "That is not true, Ambassador. Clause 9 merely demands compliance in enforcing the articles of this resolution, which your nation would already be forced to do. Compliance can either be enticed by positive means, or through deterring means such as punishment. It is up to member states to determine which they choose to apply, which should not be confusing at all.

And even if Clause 9 had been excised from the draft, the rule would apply to your nation just the same. It merely is explicitly repeated in this resolution."

"We don't have to do anything at all to be in compliance with the first eight articles. Religion is granted no special protections under Trellanian law or given any exceptions from any other regulations beyond the imminently practical. The requiring us to actively force compliance, or somehow disincentivise noncompliance, leaves us in a legislative quandry as to how we can enforce both this resolution and WA #430 Freedom Of Religion Clause 3.

"So it is either confusingly-worded, in that we are somehow required to violate WA #430 in order to introduce a state reprisal system for certain religious acts which is banned under that resolution while still not violating that resolution, or it is illegal due to contradicting that resolution. And frankly, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the contradiction was not intended."

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "That is not true, Ambassador. Clause 9 merely demands compliance in enforcing the articles of this resolution, which your nation would already be forced to do. Compliance can either be enticed by positive means, or through deterring means such as punishment. It is up to member states to determine which they choose to apply, which should not be confusing at all.

And even if Clause 9 had been excised from the draft, the rule would apply to your nation just the same. It merely is explicitly repeated in this resolution."

"We don't have to do anything at all to be in compliance with the first eight articles. Religion is granted no special protections under Trellanian law or given any exceptions from any other regulations beyond the imminently practical. The requiring us to actively force compliance, or somehow disincentivise noncompliance, leaves us in a legislative quandry as to how we can enforce both this resolution and WA #430 Freedom Of Religion Clause 3.

"So it is either confusingly-worded, in that we are somehow required to violate WA #430 in order to introduce a state reprisal system for certain religious acts which is banned under that resolution while still not violating that resolution, or it is illegal due to contradicting that resolution. And frankly, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the contradiction was not intended."

Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, the World Assembly has forced member nations to adopt different approaches to legislative matters in the past already. Freedom of Religion already forces your nation to ensure that people have a right to believe or not believe, regardless of what your national laws say in regard to religion. This proposal, and in particular Clause 9, have the same effect. The same way in which you need ensure that the articles of Freedom of Religion are enforced, so too do you need to do so regarding this proposal - should it pass - and any WA resolution.

Your state is not forced to violate WA #430, as it is not reprisal for religious acts that would be enacted, but reprisal for non-compliance with this resolution. Even GAR #430 has Clause 7 as a part of its text. Clause 9 merely demands that compliance is ensured, and how a nation does that is up to the individual nation in question. If the clause had not been there, the same would have still applied. Past WA resolutions would demand that you ensure the compliance of your nation. In other words, whether Clause 9 would have been there or not, you would still be bound to the same rules of the World Assembly regarding non-compliance. As compliance is mandated for all resolutions of the World Assembly."

[Trellania]

Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, the World Assembly has forced member nations to adopt different approaches to legislative matters in the past already. Freedom of Religion already forces your nation to ensure that people have a right to believe or not believe, regardless of what your national laws say in regard to religion. This proposal, and in particular Clause 9, have the same effect. The same way in which you need ensure that the articles of Freedom of Religion are enforced, so too do you need to do so regarding this proposal - should it pass - and any WA resolution.

Your state is not forced to violate WA #430, as it is not reprisal for religious acts that would be enacted, but reprisal for non-compliance with this resolution. Even GAR #430 has Clause 7 as a part of its text. Clause 9 merely demands that compliance is ensured, and how a nation does that is up to the individual nation in question. If the clause had not been there, the same would have still applied. Past WA resolutions would demand that you ensure the compliance of your nation. In other words, whether Clause 9 would have been there or not, you would still be bound to the same rules of the World Assembly regarding non-compliance. As compliance is mandated for all resolutions of the World Assembly."

"The essential problem is the issue of required national laws. And while it may not be true of Trellania that religions have any special discrimination against apostates, a term I will point out we don't even use or have a direct translation for, but Trellania is not the world and we are very much aware that there are religions out there which do have prohibitions on interaction with apostates and will expel them from certain groups as part of religious beliefs and practices. If we ever had such moving into Trellania, your resolution would force us to legislate against their religious beliefs as it is worded.

"Also, it will force any other nation part of this assembly which has such a religion to punish them for that religious belief about apostates.

"The key issue is that #430 only makes exception for practical and compelling interests in health, safety, and good order. I think we both agree this is neither health nor safety, since you have classified it as a Civil Rights issue. That leaves the issue of good order.

"Being undefined, good order is a problematic standard; however, a definition of good order was found, in WA #436 Protecting Free Expression, which you will note also includes expression of religious beliefs. The items it found to be in violation of good order were 'defamation; blatant and explicit pornographic material; an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness; a threat to civilian or military health or safety, perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings; the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest; an infringement on private or intellectual property rights; or a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation.' Nowhere was refusal to employ considered a violation of good order.

"As such, your proposal is requiring nations to pass laws that enforce restrictions on religious expression which were not held by this organization as being violations of health, safety, or good order as defined by existing legislation. That makes clause 9 definitely illegal and most likely makes the entire proposal illegal as well."

[Wallenburg]

Clause 9 is nothing more than a requirement that the mandates actually be enforced in practice, not just on paper. It's redundant, yes, but I don't see any way that it contradicts other resolutions.

[Daarwyrth]

"The essential problem is the issue of required national laws. And while it may not be true of Trellania that religions have any special discrimination against apostates, a term I will point out we don't even use or have a direct translation for, but Trellania is not the world and we are very much aware that there are religions out there which do have prohibitions on interaction with apostates and will expel them from certain groups as part of religious beliefs and practices. If we ever had such moving into Trellania, your resolution would force us to legislate against their religious beliefs as it is worded.

"Also, it will force any other nation part of this assembly which has such a religion to punish them for that religious belief about apostates.

"The key issue is that #430 only makes exception for practical and compelling interests in health, safety, and good order. I think we both agree this is neither health nor safety, since you have classified it as a Civil Rights issue. That leaves the issue of good order.

"Being undefined, good order is a problematic standard; however, a definition of good order was found, in WA #436 Protecting Free Expression, which you will note also includes expression of religious beliefs. The items it found to be in violation of good order were 'defamation; blatant and explicit pornographic material; an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness; a threat to civilian or military health or safety, perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings; the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest; an infringement on private or intellectual property rights; or a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation.' Nowhere was refusal to employ considered a violation of good order.

"As such, your proposal is requiring nations to pass laws that enforce restrictions on religious expression which were not held by this organization as being violations of health, safety, or good order as defined by existing legislation. That makes clause 9 definitely illegal and most likely makes the entire proposal illegal as well."

Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, it is not in your authority to decide whether a proposal is illegal or not. Clause 9 isn't any different than the regular laws and rules of compliance that the World Assembly enforces. This proposal ensures that religions are still able to practice their faith according to their dogma, but without the ability to inflict retribution, reprisal or punishment on apostates. As it appears to me now, the issue with Clause 9 and this proposal is a legislative matter for your nation to figure out. The World Assembly applies resolutions to all member nations, which has caused many a member state to be forced to adapt their legal systems and judiciaries to remain compliant. Your nation would not be the first in having to adapt.

And if you truly believe in your claims about illegality, there are procedures for that."

[Trellania]

"Or we could just repeal the vague existing legislation on freedom of religion, roll the items from this into the replacement, and produce a better-quality piece of legislation that is more comprehensive and less vague."

[Daarwyrth]

Jylien Barwald, Press Secretary: "It is our pleasure to announce that this resolution proposal has reached quorum, and is currently in queue for a vote. We would like to thank all delegates who approved of our proposal, and helped it reach quorum."

[Gorundu]

OOC: I really hate the phrase "reasonable conversation and debate" used in Clause 7. Like, what does "reasonable conversation" even mean? What's an unreasonable conversation?

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I really hate the phrase "reasonable conversation and debate" used in Clause 7. Like, what does "reasonable conversation" even mean? What's an unreasonable conversation?

OOC: A conversation that is fair and sensible, a conversation that is appropriate and of a moderate tone.

An unreasonable conversation would be one with insult, shouting, ridicule, threats etc. etc.

Regulating that phrase to a detail would be unwieldy from the perspective of the WA. Many, many resolutions in the WA rely on words and language such as "reasonable X".

[Gorundu]

Regulating that phrase to a detail would be unwieldy from the perspective of the WA. Many, many resolutions in the WA rely on words and language such as "reasonable X".

And many people, especially WA regulars, dislike the frequent usuage of that word. It's a very broad word with very little meaning.

Take, for example, a conversation where a religious figure starts fearmongering, say, without their god they would feel isolated and helpless and commit suicide. Is that a reasonable conversation or not? I feel like the word "reasoned" may be more suitable in this situation - a conversation or debate where one applies reason and logic, as opposed to, say, trying to get into their head and get them shaken up and afraid.

[Bears Armed]

Take, for example, a conversation where a religious figure tells the potential apostate all the bad things that could happen if he leaves. Is that a reasonable conversation or not?

"If you mean "a religious figure uses threats to try intimidating the potential apostate into not leaving" then the answer to your question is "No, that is not 'reasonable'": Bear in mind that a high proportion of those potential "bad things" would be illegal actions under either this proposed resolution itself or earlier GA legislation. 'Reasonable' conversation would be attempts -- not continued past the point where the potential apostate says that they have had enough of this -- to use theological reasoning to show the potential apostate that they can have whatever it is that they want from a religion from their current one, without needing to leave it for a different school of thought... if that genuinely would be possible."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission at the W.A. .

[Daarwyrth]

Regulating that phrase to a detail would be unwieldy from the perspective of the WA. Many, many resolutions in the WA rely on words and language such as "reasonable X".

And many people, especially WA regulars, dislike the frequent usuage of that word. It's a very broad word with very little meaning.

Take, for example, a conversation where a religious figure starts fearmongering, say, without their god they would feel isolated and helpless and commit suicide. Is that a reasonable conversation or not? I feel like the word "reasoned" may be more suitable in this situation - a conversation or debate where one applies reason and logic, as opposed to, say, trying to get into their head and get them shaken up and afraid.

OOC: Of course that is not reasonable. By the very definition of "reasonable", such a conversation would absolutely be not reasonable. The word "reasonable" means "being in accordance with reason", "not extreme or excessive", "possessing sound judgment". "Reasoned" would absolutely not be a stronger substitute for "reasonable" here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I really hate the phrase "reasonable conversation and debate" used in Clause 7. Like, what does "reasonable conversation" even mean? What's an unreasonable conversation?

OOC: A conversation that is fair and sensible, a conversation that is appropriate and of a moderate tone.

An unreasonable conversation would be one with insult, shouting, ridicule, threats etc. etc.

Regulating that phrase to a detail would be unwieldy from the perspective of the WA. Many, many resolutions in the WA rely on words and language such as "reasonable X".

Write that instead.