[PASSED] Religious Freedom Protection

[Heidgaudr]

Zylkoven: "Then the question of religion should not be enforced upon the child at any age, but left up to them to decide when they attain legal competence through reaching the age of majority. We have resolutions on the books that protect children from undue influences, I don't see a reason religion should be exempt from that."

The ambassador of Old Hope replies in an icy tone:"Ambassador, you should really know better than to open this can of worms. Not every person survives to reach the age of majority. To consign all those who do not reach the age of majority to damnation, at least in their view, will be very unpopular... and that is probably an understatement."

Under-Secretary Vilvotr: "Well then it's a damn good thing I don't believe in that hokum! Any god who would damn a child is no god worth worshipping." He chuckles. "My god is the god of the good o' al-kee-hawl." He raises a shot glass in celebration.

[Daarwyrth]

Zylkoven: "Then the question of religion should not be enforced upon the child at any age, but left up to them to decide when they attain legal competence through reaching the age of majority. We have resolutions on the books that protect children from undue influences, I don't see a reason religion should be exempt from that."

The ambassador of Old Hope replies in an icy tone:"Ambassador, you should really know better than to open this can of worms. Not every person survives to reach the age of majority. To consign all those who do not reach the age of majority to damnation, at least in their view, will be very unpopular... and that is probably an understatement."

Princess Madelyne chuckles, yet the sound of her voice lacks any mirth. "Ambassador, you make baseless claims, as usual, with no evidence to back them up. We are a diverse assembly of nations with myriad religions, if you happen to adhere to a fatalistic, doom-saying faith that would see innocent children damned for eternity, then frankly that is your problem to solve, and not mine. I find it quite disturbing that one would ever want to adhere to a religion that condemns the souls of the innocent to torture that way. Fortunately, Mareism holds no such reprehensible religious dogmas, and no innocent child-souls are condemned to damnation in Daarwyrth if they don't attend church every Sunday. We don't condone such cruel religious views within the Royal State.

As such, I'm going to break decorum and say that the entire reasoning you just professed is plain, old bullshit."

[Old Hope]

We don't condone such cruel religious views within the Royal State.

"Ambassador... this proposal would ban such practices. And indeed, your actions are in violation of General Assembly Resolution 430. We have notified the Compliance Commission accordingly."

[Daarwyrth]

We don't condone such cruel religious views within the Royal State.

"Ambassador... this proposal would ban such practices. And indeed, your actions are in violation of General Assembly Resolution 430. We have notified the Compliance Commission accordingly."

"The compliance commission is more than welcome to visit Daarwyrth and do a thorough inspection, we'll greet them with open arms," the princess regards the ambassador from Old Hope with a polite smile that does not at all reach her eyes. "The commission will find that Daarwyrth maintains perfect compliance with all resolutions currently on the books. After all, nothing in GAR#430 forbids anyone in my nation or yours from "not condoning" a set of religious beliefs. In other words, there is no breach of law, never has been, and never will be. Your report is nothing more but a foolish and pathetic attempt at retribution, as your response indicates to us that you have no meritorious counter-argument left to give to my reply. We hope that your nation maintains the same level of devotion to compliance as exhibited by your lovely report to the Compliance Commission, because I am sure they would not appreciate being used as a weapon in one delegation's inexplicable crusade of pettiness against another. Yes, I am speaking of you, Ambassador."

[Excidium Planetis]

Under-Secretary Vilvotr: "Well then it's a damn good thing I don't believe in that hokum! Any god who would damn a child is no god worth worshipping." He chuckles. "My god is the god of the good o' al-kee-hawl." He raises a shot glass in celebration.

"I, uh, sure hope that your children do not worship the same god." Adelia replies.

[Goobergunchia]

We believe that it would be more sensible for the coercion clause to simply be limited to state actors. Our interest in this resolution is protecting adherents of minority religions from imposition by the majority, not to micromanage interpersonal relationships.

We would also note that blanket attempts to ban parents from passing ethnoreligious rites of passage on to their children could be considered a form of cultural genocide, which member nations are of course prohibited from perpetrating.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

We believe that it would be more sensible for the coercion clause to simply be limited to state actors. Our interest in this resolution is protecting adherents of minority religions from imposition by the majority, not to micromanage interpersonal relationships.

We would also note that blanket attempts to ban parents from passing ethnoreligious rites of passage on to their children could be considered a form of cultural genocide, which member nations are of course prohibited from perpetrating.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

"This does not prevent parents from passing religious rites of passage onto their children. It merely prohibits parents from using force or intimidation to coerce their children to adopt a particular religion. That said, we have elected to remove this clause as we feel that force and intimidation is sufficiently protected by the ban on religious persecution."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Pangurstan]

"We have decided to draft our own replacement for 'Freedom of Religion' should our repeal thereof pass."

The World Assembly,

Observing the persecution and discrimination both by member nations and private entities therein towards certain religious groups, and believing this to be vastly unjust,

Recognising that, while resolutions such as "Protecting Free Expression" and "Freedom of Association" enact protections against certain means of state persecution of religions, due to the repeal of "Freedom of Religion", there is an ominous silence of World Assembly law on the general topic of religious freedoms,

Identifying freedom of religion as an important civil right, and one that ought to be protected internationally, rather than left up to the whims of individual member nations,

Believing that World Assembly legislation is therefore needed to universally protect this important right within member nations,

Enacts as follows _

1. So be it within this resolution _
   
   
   1. "Religion" means a set of beliefs on the metaphysical governing means of behaviour or morality.
      
      
   2. "Religious practice" means a practice, such as ritual or fasting, performed due to and as per one's religion.
      
      
   3. "Religious institution" means an organisation or institution that facilitates religion, except where that organisation or institution either actively encourages unlawful action, or directly endorses hate towards some group.
   
   
2. The act of targetting harassment, murder, or any otherwise-unlawful act towards a person on the grounds of their religion or lack thereof, or their participation or lack of participation in a religious institution, is hereby prohibited.
   
   
3. All member nations must prohibit the denial of any secular service -- such as welfare or insurance -- to an individual based solely on their religion or lack thereof, or their participation or lack of participation in a religious institution.
   
   
4. The holding or lack of a religion must be considered legal in all member nations. Accordingly, no member nation may prosecute or penalise any individual for their religion or lack thereof.
   
   
5. Each member nation must refrain from discriminating or retaliating against any individual for their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution, including by
   
   
   1. denying equality under the law to individuals based on their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution;
      
      
   2. discriminating against individuals in tax based on their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution; or
      
      
   3. restricting a religious practice in a manner designed to discourage or suppress the religion in question.
   
   
6. If any provision of this resolution contradicts some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. Singular terms in this resolution are to be interpreted as including the plural thereof, and vice versa.

Notes _

• Yes, 5b bans church tax -- which is not the same as taxing churches... That is deliberate.
  
  
• Category is tentatively Civil Rights -> Significant.
  
  
• I will not be submitting the repeal until this is fully drafted.

The second part of 1c ("except where that organisation or institution either actively encourages unlawful action, or directly endorses hate towards some group") coupled with the phrasing of some of the other clauses allows discrimination against non-members of organizations that are not considered "religious institutions" because they promote hate towards other groups.

[Jedinsto]

"How are any of these protections and mandates not guaranteed under the Charter of Civil Rights?"

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"How are any of these protections and mandates not guaranteed under the Charter of Civil Rights?"

"Resolution 35 allows exceptions to its mandates for a 'compelling practical purpose'. None of these mandates have such an exception. Likewise, 35 only prohibits denial of secular services that is 'unfair and unreasonable', this having no such exception. Further, 35 does not prohibit discrimination based on membership -- or lack of membership -- in a religious institution. Finally, protection of religious practices as Section 5c does is wholly out of the scope of 35."

Draft text

The second part of 1c ("except where that organisation or institution either actively encourages unlawful action, or directly endorses hate towards some group") coupled with the phrasing of some of the other clauses allows discrimination against non-members of organizations that are not considered "religious institutions" because they promote hate towards other groups.

"This should be fixed."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Divinusland]

"We have decided to draft our own replacement for 'Freedom of Religion' should our repeal thereof pass."

The World Assembly,

Observing the persecution and discrimination both by member nations and private entities therein towards certain religious groups, and believing this to be vastly unjust,

Recognising that, while resolutions such as "Protecting Free Expression" and "Freedom of Association" enact protections against certain means of state persecution of religions, due to the repeal of "Freedom of Religion", there is an ominous silence of World Assembly law on the general topic of religious freedoms,

Identifying freedom of religion as an important civil right, and one that ought to be protected internationally, rather than left up to the whims of individual member nations,

Believing that World Assembly legislation is therefore needed to universally protect this important right within member nations,

Enacts as follows _

1. So be it within this resolution _
   
   
   1. "Religion" means a set of beliefs on the metaphysical governing means of behaviour or morality.
      
      
   2. "Religious practice" means a practice, such as ritual or fasting, performed due to and as per one's religion.
      
      
   3. "Religious institution" means an organisation or institution that facilitates religion.
   
   
2. The act of targetting harassment, murder, or any otherwise-unlawful act towards a person on the grounds of their religion or lack thereof, or their participation or lack of participation in a religious institution, is hereby prohibited.
   
   
3. All member nations must prohibit the denial of any secular service -- such as welfare or insurance -- to an individual based solely on their religion or lack thereof, or their participation or lack of participation in a religious institution.
   
   
4. The holding or lack of a religion must be considered legal in all member nations. Accordingly, no member nation may prosecute or penalise any individual for their religion or lack thereof.
   
   
5. Each member nation must refrain from discriminating or retaliating against any individual for their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution, including by
   
   
   1. denying equality under the law to individuals based on their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution;
      
      
   2. discriminating against individuals in tax based on their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution; or
      
      
   3. restricting a religious practice in a manner designed to discourage or suppress the religion in question.
   
   Yet, other mandates of this resolution notwithstanding and subject to World Assembly law, member nations may prosecute or penalise membership in a religious institution that actively encourages or performs unlawful acts, or directly endorses hate towards some group.
   
   
6. If any provision of this resolution contradicts some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. Singular terms in this resolution are to be interpreted as including the plural thereof, and vice versa.

Notes _

• Yes, 5b bans church tax -- which is not the same as taxing churches... That is deliberate.
  
  
• Category is tentatively Civil Rights -> Significant.
  
  
• I will not be submitting the repeal until this is fully drafted.

The problem that I see is that the way the proposal is written makes it problematic and dubious to interpret, which can lead to a possible and sudden revocation. And honestly this will end up causing unnecessary stress.

And I speak from experience. There were several projects that were not even approved, shortly after they were revoked, and then they appeared again to be voted on.

So I ask you to be clear, direct and incisive so that there is a real conviction in votes in favor of the project.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

LONG POST

The problem that I see is that the way the proposal is written makes it problematic and dubious to interpret, which can lead to a possible and sudden revocation. And honestly this will end up causing unnecessary stress.

And I speak from experience. There were several projects that were not even approved, shortly after they were revoked, and then they appeared again to be voted on.

So I ask you to be clear, direct and incisive so that there is a real conviction in votes in favor of the project.

"Thank you -- we have made changes to attempt to improve clarity. Does this adequately address your mission's concerns?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Bovad]

Did I read this right and see that there is nothing limiting the legality of practices being major crimes? Does that mean that a person could do anything if it is part of their religon?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Did I read this right and see that there is nothing limiting the legality of practices being major crimes? Does that mean that a person could do anything if it is part of their religon?

"This doesn't stop you from restricting any religious practice -- it only stops you from restricting religious practice because you want to suppress a religion. How seriously does your nation take the recommendations of your GA #122 office?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Lounarei]

Did I read this right and see that there is nothing limiting the legality of practices being major crimes? Does that mean that a person could do anything if it is part of their religon?

"If we can't all get completely zooted on April 4th, de Lordess's dé, what is even de point?"
--Mésruu Kiimas, WA Ambassador to the Concordat of Lónaré

[Bentho]

As an atheists I support every religions how ever of you force it on others or use it for clout I don't support that or if it's a cult

[Nouvel Empire]

Yet, other mandates of this resolution notwithstanding and subject to World Assembly law, a member nation may prosecute or penalise membership in a religious institution that actively encourages or performs unlawful acts, or directly promotes hate towards some group.

"Would it imply that... a State could persecute a religion for supposed actions, because this proposal would give it the right to do so, if it put forward convincing arguments, and therefore, that all of clause 5 would be rendered void by this exception that any State could simply apply?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Yet, other mandates of this resolution notwithstanding and subject to World Assembly law, a member nation may prosecute or penalise membership in a religious institution that actively encourages or performs unlawful acts, or directly promotes hate towards some group.

"Would it imply that... a State could persecute a religion for supposed actions, because this proposal would give it the right to do so, if it put forward convincing arguments, and therefore, that all of clause 5 would be rendered void by this exception that any State could simply apply?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

"We have clarified this section to make it clear that, unless the institution is actually "actively encouraging or performing unlawful act" or "directly promoting hate", just supposing that an institution is doing so is not sufficient to meet the burden of this mandate."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Tinhampton]

The Tinhamptonian delegation is unequivocally opposed to all proposals which require member states to prosecute hate crime.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

The Tinhamptonian delegation is unequivocally opposed to all proposals which require member states to prosecute hate crime.

"Why is this a problem? Especially given that it only applies to 'violence, murder, or any otherwise-unlawful act', it would only prevent you from exempting religiously-motivated crimes from prosecution -- unless violence and murder are somehow legal in your nation."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Refuge Isle]

The Tinhamptonian delegation is unequivocally opposed to all proposals which require member states to prosecute hate crime.

Civil Rights is an outdated category, the people only want Civil Wrongs now.

[Nouvel Empire]

"We have clarified this section to make it clear that, unless the institution is actually "actively encouraging or performing unlawful act" or "directly promoting hate", just supposing that an institution is doing so is not sufficient to meet the burden of this mandate."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"The clarification of this section is welcome, but our remark was just one example of how this section could jeopardize not only clause 5 but the whole proposal, because a State, if it has the means, could very well create false evidence against a religious group, which could be very convincing. We understand the spirit of this section but this detail very seriously compromises the whole proposal."
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"We have clarified this section to make it clear that, unless the institution is actually "actively encouraging or performing unlawful act" or "directly promoting hate", just supposing that an institution is doing so is not sufficient to meet the burden of this mandate."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

"The clarification of this section is welcome, but our remark was just one example of how this section could jeopardize not only clause 5 but the whole proposal, because a State, if it has the means, could very well create false evidence against a religious group, which could be very convincing. We understand the spirit of this section but this detail very seriously compromises the whole proposal."
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

"Manufacturing evidence that a religious group is violating Section 5, and then attempting to use it in demonstrating a violation, is simply bad faith. The very second resolution by this assembly explicitly prohibits bad faith compliance."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Goobergunchia]

As currently written clause 5c is not sensibly enforceable. The "encourages or performs unlawful acts" language elsewhere in clause 5 takes precedence over every other portion of the draft proposal and there is no restriction on what a member state may define as an unlawful act. Accordingly a member state may simply outlaw a religious practice and then prohibit membership in the relevant religious institutions on that basis. (It would, however, arguably not be able to then actually restrict members of that religion from carrying out that practice independently.)

Consider, for instance, the effect if Permit Male Circumcision was repealed and a member state chose to prohibit male circumcision. The draft proposal would raise no bar against disbanding every synagogue and mosque in said member state.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

As currently written clause 5c is not sensibly enforceable. The "encourages or performs unlawful acts" language elsewhere in clause 5 takes precedence over every other portion of the draft proposal and there is no restriction on what a member state may define as an unlawful act. Accordingly a member state may simply outlaw a religious practice and then prohibit membership in the relevant religious institutions on that basis. (It would, however, arguably not be able to then actually restrict members of that religion from carrying out that practice independently.)

Consider, for instance, the effect if Permit Male Circumcision was repealed and a member state chose to prohibit male circumcision. The draft proposal would raise no bar against disbanding every synagogue and mosque in said member state.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

"Thanks for this comment. We have elected to remove the protections against state persecution of religious institutions as they are likely redundant under GA #550 and to avoid this issue."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States