[PASSED] Religious Freedom Protection

[Capitalism Cuba]

In the perspective of an agnostic, religion shouldn't be forced, but permitted.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"As we have submitted the repeal of 430, one can expect this to be submitted in about a week. Feedback is still appreciated."

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

[Juansonia]

In the perspective of an agnostic, religion shouldn't be forced, but permitted.

"This is merely a replacement for a WA resolution which Magecastle is trying to repeal. Both protect the right of people to have or lack any set of religious beliefs." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This proposal belongs in the shredder. All the "separate church and state" bullcrap you are preaching has been extensively covered by basic civil rights and freedom of expression resolutions. The "don't restrict religious practices to suppress religion" whimper of a mandate is so easily loopholed it is not even funny. There is nothing in here that is an improvement of previous legislation on the topic, and thus we oppose this repeal and "Replace" effort.

[Nouvel Empire]

"If we are satisfied with the deletion of the section concluding clause 5, which jeopardized the whole proposal, we do not understand, on the other hand, the absence of a clause responding to the problem underlined in the draft repeal, namely the possibility for States to take more restrictive measures against religious practices, such as cannibalism."
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This proposal belongs in the shredder. All the "separate church and state" bullcrap you are preaching has been extensively covered by basic civil rights and freedom of expression resolutions. The "don't restrict religious practices to suppress religion" whimper of a mandate is so easily loopholed it is not even funny. There is nothing in here that is an improvement of previous legislation on the topic, and thus we oppose this repeal and "Replace" effort.

The ambassador hesistates, before quietly replying, "Are you saying we are preaching opposition to Klyprer? Wait, no." He then whispers, "I said nothing."

He then adds in a more audible voice, "In any case, I highly doubt that the non-member Obaman mission will be able to defeat this proposal when you are not even able to cast a vote. "
-----

"If we are satisfied with the deletion of the section concluding clause 5, which jeopardized the whole proposal, we do not understand, on the other hand, the absence of a clause responding to the problem underlined in the draft repeal, namely the possibility for States to take more restrictive measures against religious practices, such as cannibalism."
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

"No part in this resolution prevents member nations from restricting religious practices. However, they cannot restrict religious practices in a manner designed to suppress a religion."

"Would a clearer provision vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices, such as this, resolve your concerns?"

A member state may only restrict a religious practice to advance an important public interest, where the scope of said restriction is substantially related to advancement of that interest. The promotion, suppression, or discouragement of a religion shall not be considered an "important public interest" in this resolution.

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

[Nouvel Empire]

"Would a clearer provision vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices, such as this, resolve your concerns?"

A member state may only restrict a religious practice to advance an important public interest, where the scope of said restriction is substantially related to advancement of that interest. The promotion, suppression, or discouragement of a religion shall not be considered an "important public interest" in this resolution.

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

"A provision such as this is of course necessary, but in the end, how is this draft significantly different from the original resolution that you are proposing to repeal?

The added provision, even using different language from clause 3 of GAR#430, provides the same limitations as this, what difference can be made between a 'compelling public interest' and an 'important public interest'?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Would a clearer provision vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices, such as this, resolve your concerns?"



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

"A provision such as this is of course necessary, but in the end, how is this draft significantly different from the original resolution that you are proposing to repeal?

The added provision, even using different language from clause 3 of GAR#430, provides the same limitations as this, what difference can be made between a 'compelling public interest' and an 'important public interest'?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

"This proposed test is less restrictive as, unlike 430, it does not mandate that the 'least restrictive means' be used -- merely that there is a substantial relation between the intended goal and the scope of the restriction."

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

[Nouvel Empire]

"This proposed test is less restrictive as, unlike 430, it does not mandate that the 'least restrictive means' be used -- merely that there is a substantial relation between the intended goal and the scope of the restriction."

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

"Is this difference worth a repeal? To return to the example of cannibalism, wouldn't preventing or even banning it be the 'least restrictive means', in relation to its health consequences? For this example, how does the original resolution apply differently than what is offered here?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Is this difference worth a repeal? To return to the example of cannibalism, wouldn't preventing or even banning it be the 'least restrictive means', in relation to its health consequences? For this example, how does the original resolution apply differently than what is offered here?"
-Ambassador Fehlaaur

"There are less restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism than prohibiting it outright, such as imposing licensing regulations. Therefore, banning cannibalism is not the 'least restrictive means', and banning the practice is illegal under 430."

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

[Excidium Planetis]

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

"What about, uh, Civil Blood?" Adelia queries. "I hear that Civil Blood makes Civil Hands unclean."

[Excidium Planetis]

"There are less restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism than prohibiting it outright, such as imposing licensing regulations. Therefore, banning cannibalism is not the 'least restrictive means', and banning the practice is illegal under 430."

"Licenses don't address the primary issues with cannibalism, however. So therefore they are not a less restrictive means of addressing the issue." Adelia retorts. "Prohibition is the least restrictive means of preventing all same-species flesh consumption for the sake of public health."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"There are less restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism than prohibiting it outright, such as imposing licensing regulations. Therefore, banning cannibalism is not the 'least restrictive means', and banning the practice is illegal under 430."

"Licenses don't address the primary issues with cannibalism, however. So therefore they are not a less restrictive means of addressing the issue." Adelia retorts. "Prohibition is the least restrictive means of preventing all same-species flesh consumption for the sake of public health."

"Licensing regulations that, for example, prohibit the sale of the most dangerous kinds of person-sourced meats (such as sapient brain, or meat sourced from an individual who tested positive for a disease that can be transmitted by cannibalism), can address the issue of the health risks of cannibalism. While a full ban on person-sourced meats would be the most effective manner to minimise the spread of such diseases through cannibalism, licensing regulations are still the least restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism. A full ban is therefore prohibited by 430."

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

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. In my view, the least restrictive means would be to have licences which test the cannibal food for prion contamination, in the same way that food is today normally tested for bacterial contamination etc. In countries without the ability to test for prions in meat en masse, I think the closest would probably be bans on the most dangerous portions with a probabilistic assessment of whether the source could have been diseased at the time of death.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Cannibals aside, whatever proposal about religious protections also protects from religions, gets my approval.

[Juansonia]

OOC: Cannibals aside, whatever proposal about religious protections also protects from religions, gets my approval.

OOC: This proposal protects lack of religion the same way that it protects religion - both are protected from suppression by the state. "Protection of Apostates", another GA resolution of which I forgot the number, protects those who change religious beliefs and encourages a secular approach to prosecuting religious violence.

[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?

"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

I apologise for the misunderstanding. Also, how is supression legally defined? What is to stop a nation from claiming that they are not supressing a religon by making laws limiting its practices?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"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

I apologise for the misunderstanding. Also, how is supression legally defined? What is to stop a nation from claiming that they are not supressing a religon by making laws limiting its practices?

"We do not believe that it is necessary to define 'suppression', as we find the word's meaning to be clear."

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

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC. In my view, the least restrictive means would be to have licences which test the cannibal food for prion contamination, in the same way that food is today normally tested for bacterial contamination etc. In countries without the ability to test for prions in meat en masse, I think the closest would probably be bans on the most dangerous portions with a probabilistic assessment of whether the source could have been diseased at the time of death.

OOC:
But that's not the least restrictive thing you can do. You'd still be banning the consumption of some of the meat, it's always going to be less restrictive to not ban it.

"Licenses don't address the primary issues with cannibalism, however. So therefore they are not a less restrictive means of addressing the issue." Adelia retorts. "Prohibition is the least restrictive means of preventing all same-species flesh consumption for the sake of public health."

"Licensing regulations that, for example, prohibit the sale of the most dangerous kinds of person-sourced meats (such as sapient brain, or meat sourced from an individual who tested positive for a disease that can be transmitted by cannibalism), can address the issue of the health risks of cannibalism. While a full ban on person-sourced meats would be the most effective manner to minimise the spread of such diseases through cannibalism, licensing regulations are still the least restrictive means of addressing the health risks of cannibalism. A full ban is therefore prohibited by 430."

"If effectiveness is irrelevant, Ambassador, then there can always be a less restrictive but less effective option to be taken... For example, a public health campaign would be less restrictive and less effective than licensing regulations." Adelia replies. "B-But you seem to be under the impression that licensing regulations are allowed even though less restrictive but less effective options exist.

"Effectiveness therefore must factor into the determination when considering a course of action, otherwise GA#430 would have prohibited nearly any government actions so long as a less restrictive option existed."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. True religions should be exempted from these requirements. If the world actually ends because you stop doing some ritual, you should do that ritual.

[Rubenfieldd]

``Our country STRONGLY supports cults! they're just little itty bitty religions! we support big religions too and sacrifices are actually allowed as long as it's volunteers of the cult itself, or just homeless people.``
A lovely quote said by our minister of religion:
King Deniis Smith

[Aelyria]

OOC. In my view, the least restrictive means would be to have licences which test the cannibal food for prion contamination, in the same way that food is today normally tested for bacterial contamination etc. In countries without the ability to test for prions in meat en masse, I think the closest would probably be bans on the most dangerous portions with a probabilistic assessment of whether the source could have been diseased at the time of death.

OOC: Then you are simply mistaken with regard to what the "least restrictive means" test does. Murder is, by definition, illegal. The "least restrictive means" to preventing cannibalism is to properly enforce laws against murder, assault, and battery. No amount of cannibalism is acceptable under the law, because even "consensual homicide" is still murder, in like fashion to how no amount of slavery is acceptable, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. The "least restrictive means" for dealing with cannibalism is to not permit it to occur, because the compelling interest is literally saving the lives of the victims thereof; the one and only form of "consensual homicide" that is valid is physician-assisted suicide, and even that is highly controversial and not legal in many jurisdictions. Likewise, the least restrictive means for preventing religious slavery is to ban it completely, as one does with all forms of slavery, because no other means can possibly achieve the goal of actually stopping slavery from occurring.

No wonder people are trying to repeal the original law. They literally don't understand the standard being used, and twist it into something idiotic! Even the broadest definition of the "least restrictive means" test (and the related doctrines of vagueness and over-broadness) specifically indicates that the end result should be achievable so long as it is a valid thing to restrict.

Of course, the fact that the new legislation permits all sorts of restrictions, against any person for whatever reason, regardless of what they do or don't believe, simply because the government would like the end result, is a whole other issue.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. In my view, the least restrictive means would be to have licences which test the cannibal food for prion contamination, in the same way that food is today normally tested for bacterial contamination etc. In countries without the ability to test for prions in meat en masse, I think the closest would probably be bans on the most dangerous portions with a probabilistic assessment of whether the source could have been diseased at the time of death.

OOC: Then you are simply mistaken with regard to what the "least restrictive means" test does. Murder is, by definition, illegal. The "least restrictive means" to preventing cannibalism is to properly enforce laws against murder, assault, and battery. No amount of cannibalism is acceptable under the law, because even "consensual homicide" is still murder, in like fashion to how no amount of slavery is acceptable, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. The "least restrictive means" for dealing with cannibalism is to not permit it to occur, because the compelling interest is literally saving the lives of the victims thereof; the one and only form of "consensual homicide" that is valid is physician-assisted suicide, and even that is highly controversial and not legal in many jurisdictions. Likewise, the least restrictive means for preventing religious slavery is to ban it completely, as one does with all forms of slavery, because no other means can possibly achieve the goal of actually stopping slavery from occurring.

No wonder people are trying to repeal the original law. They literally don't understand the standard being used, and twist it into something idiotic! Even the broadest definition of the "least restrictive means" test (and the related doctrines of vagueness and over-broadness) specifically indicates that the end result should be achievable so long as it is a valid thing to restrict.

Of course, the fact that the new legislation permits all sorts of restrictions, against any person for whatever reason, regardless of what they do or don't believe, simply because the government would like the end result, is a whole other issue.

You spend all this time establishing that the only way to prevent murders is to stop people from being killed. Yet at the same time fail to comprehend that cannibalism itself isn't murder. If someone ate, for example, from another person's body that previously died a natural death, this is not the same as killing someone for the purpose of getting to their meat. There is an ongoing debate as to the extent to which a policy has to be "advanced". I've checked four dictionaries; none of them use the word to mean the same thing as "achieved".

[Aelyria]

You spend all this time establishing that the only way to prevent murders is to stop people from being killed. Yet at the same time fail to comprehend that cannibalism itself isn't murder. If someone ate, for example, from another person's body that previously died a natural death, this is not the same as killing someone for the purpose of getting to their meat. There is an ongoing debate as to the extent to which a policy has to be "advanced". I've checked four dictionaries; none of them use the word to mean the same thing as "achieved".

(OOC) From the US National Institutes of Health (a country where "least restrictive means" testing is the norm for questions of religious freedom; all italics in original):
"Dawson's objection can be avoided if we consider the principle of least restrictive means to include a ceteris paribus clause, however. According to such a clause, the least restrictive means is the one that restricts individual freedom to the least extent possible after having taken into account other (normative) concerns and values, such as the effectiveness, feasibility, fairness, well‐being and equality. If two measures are equally effective and respectful of people's well‐being, we should prefer the measure that is least restrictive of individual freedom. What Dawson's objection does highlight, though, is that identifying the least restrictive means is not as straightforward as merely being concerned with individual freedom since, all things considered, other concerns and values also matter."

Indeed, this citation is precisely on point for the discussion at hand, because the cannibalism example is very specifically about controlling a public health problem, and this is very specifically a bioethics article discussing the appropriate approaches to addressing bioethics concerns. The "intervention ladder" referenced in that article specifically shows that "Do nothing or simply monitor the situation" is always an option--but clearly one which achieves nothing whatsoever in terms of altering existing conditions. Clearly, even under a "least restrictive means" doctrine, we care about more values than JUST freedom exclusively.

Edit: And for another citation, this one from the Wikipedia article regarding the Sherbert test, which is the test used in the US for religious-freedom cases (and thus, demonstrably, what GA#430 is based upon):

"However, not all burdens placed on religious exercise are constitutionally prohibited under the test. If the first prong is passed, the government may still constitutionally impose the burden on the individual's free exercise if the government can show

• it possesses some compelling state interest that justifies the infringement (the compelling interest prong) and
• no alternative form of regulation can avoid the infringement and still achieve the state's end (the narrow tailoring prong).

Edit II: And should Wikipedia fail to suffice, here are numerous other sources which use the word "achieve(s)," not simply "advance(s)," in describing this approach, even from atheist critics.

Actual documents from the US Supreme Court itself have also understood this standard in this way. It cites from a prior decision, Shelton v. Tucker, which states: "In a series of decisions, this Court has held that, even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved. The breadth of legislative abridgment must be viewed in the light of less drastic means for achieving the same basic purpose."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: As the repeal looks on track to pass, I'm formally marking this on [LAST CALL], and appreciate any feedback.

OOC. True religions should be exempted from these requirements. If the world actually ends because you stop doing some ritual, you should do that ritual.

Define "true religion". I'm not too interested in accomodating for some kind of religio-wank in which some deity actually does exist and will destroy the world if they don't have an unbeliever sacrificed to them weekly.

The proposal doesn't even ban any religious practices, it merely regulates instances for a member state may in turn regulate one. I'd rather not open the doors to religions demanding to be allowed to persecute unbelievers because they're convinced that they're true and that the world will end if they don't do so.