DRAFT: Ban on Burning Crosses

[Sionis Prioratus]

Category: Moral Decency / Strength: Significant
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

APPALLED at the continuing occurrences of verbal, symbolic and even physical harassments and assaults based on perceived racial differences,

ACKNOWLEDGING that setting crosses on fire is a symbolic gesture that in some cases intends to strike terror at the heart of individuals, families and communities belonging to racial minorities,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that sights of such hate-filled demonstrations can and often do leave extremely negative lifelong psychological scars, especially in children, compromising in the most significant ways their sense of self-esteem, and their hopes to be able and deserving to pursue the fulfillment of their dreams,

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that such occurrences induce families to flee their communities for fear about their own lives,

AFFIRMING this is an unacceptable and barbaric scenario,

RESOLVES:

1) Burning of crosses with the overt or covert intention to intimidate a member or members of a racial minority - no matter if on public or private or hidden spaces - is strictly forbidden.

2) Such a despicable act shall be made criminal by all the member states.

[Meekinos]

Meekinos' annual Festival of Light and Freedom, involves the burning of crosses to symbolize the freedom from oppression; not carrying any unnecessary burden. We refuse to make it a criminal offence when it is part of our time honoured cultural tradition.

For cultural reasons we refuse to allow this discriminatory proposal.

As for economic reasons, we have manufacturers who produce special crosses for this annual celebration. If there is no way to celebrate, then they are unable to sell, which directly impacts on our economy.

For economic reasons, we have further objections to this proposal.

[Rutianas]

The Republic agrees with the reasoning behind this proposal. We also recognise that there may be cultures where it is common to burn crosses. I think a common ground can be reached. Perhaps it should be made clear that the actions that will be disallowed and made criminal is that if the intention behind the burning of a cross is to strike fear. If this were to be added, then the Republic would toss in support.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Sionis Prioratus]

Thank you, Hon. Ambassadors. Concerns addressed in new text; edits in blue.

Yours,

[Rutianas]

ACKNOWLEDGING that setting crosses on fire is a symbolic gesture that almost universally intends to strike terror at the heart of individuals, families and communities belonging to racial minorities,

Perhaps you should use 'in some cases' rather than 'almost universally'? I wouldn't want to deal with someone whipping out studies on the numerous religions that are in existance to show that it's not an 'almost universal' meaning.

Other than that, this is something I could support.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Sionis Prioratus]

ACKNOWLEDGING that setting crosses on fire is a symbolic gesture that almost universally intends to strike terror at the heart of individuals, families and communities belonging to racial minorities,

Perhaps you should use 'in some cases' rather than 'almost universally'? I wouldn't want to deal with someone whipping out studies on the numerous religions that are in existance to show that it's not an 'almost universal' meaning.

Other than that, this is something I could support.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

You're right. Usual suspects would/will come with thousands of tomes saying just that. The sooner I'm warned, the better. Edited again.

Thank you & yours,

[Bears Armed]

Does this really happen in enough nations for a "Significant" strength to be appropriate?

What about situations where burning crosses is meant to intimidate members of religious minorities (i.e. presumably Christians) rather than 'racial' ones?
And what about cases of publicly destroying other religions' symbols (or holy books, or whatever), or nations' flags, or sets of particular ethnic groups' traditional clothing, or whatever, as other potential means of intimidating members of the groups concerned?

[Sionis Prioratus]

Does this really happen in enough nations for a "Significant" strength to be appropriate?

What about situations where burning crosses is meant to intimidate members of religious minorities (i.e. presumably Christians) rather than 'racial' ones?
And what about cases of publicly destroying other religions' symbols (or holy books, or whatever), or nations' flags, or sets of particular ethnic groups' traditional clothing, or whatever, as other potential means of intimidating members of the groups concerned?

I'm also conflicted about the strength: My deciding factor was the trauma such a situation inflicts, in itself it would warrant a rare "Strong" strength. But it is not a worldwide epidemic, which would be "Mild". I chose the middle path. But I can be persuaded.

I want to make this statute very narrow on purpose, so as not to run afoul the "Freedom of Expression Act", here in full (emphasis mine)

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: Assured that freedom of expression is an essential human right deserving of international protection;

Determined that no one should have to put their lives, families, liberty or property at risk for expressing honest dissent with, otherwise criticizing or even satirizing their leaders, governments, societies, churches or any other institutions of established power;

Chastened by the sacrifices already made by prisoners and victims of conscience throughout the world;

Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud;

Agreed that for purposes of this resolution defamation is defined as the use of knowingly false information, or the raising of such with reckless disregard for its truthfulness, in a deliberate attempt to impugn the character or reputation of any individual, group or organization, excepting government institutions or political leaders,

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

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;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Yours,

[Meekinos]

Thank you, Hon. Ambassadors. Concerns addressed in new text; edits in blue.

Yours,

We appreciate the amendment, as in its previous form it would have disbarred us from engaging in our traditional cultural practices. In this form it's acceptable. We are glad to see that it would penalise those who are engaged in activities with the sole purposing of harming others while leaving legitimate practice be.

[Bears Armed]

I want to make this statute very narrow on purpose, so as not to run afoul the "Freedom of Expression Act",

Hr'rmm, surely we can either ban all such forms of intimidation, or we can ban none of them, but the resolution in question is not so selective in itself that it allows banning "'cross-burning" alone out of all the possible ways of trying to intimidate minority groups?

[Absolvability]

I can't support this proposal, though I certainly agree with it. There has been sufficient anti-discrimination legislation passed through this Assembly to make me think that burning crosses for such purposes is already outlawed... even if nobody provided the specific example of 'burning crosses.'

But lets say it does happen... well, it's pretty stupid, but let the idiots do what they want. I wouldn't ban burning crosses any more than I would ban burning flags. For the same reasons. I understand the whole 'in case of intimidation,' or whatever... I just... don't really think that happens. Or, if it does, I don't think this resolution would help it anymore than all the other stuff that exists in the same vein.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I want to make this statute very narrow on purpose, so as not to run afoul the "Freedom of Expression Act", here in full (emphasis mine)

The exceptions are for individual member states. Let's leave cross-burning (which has been parts of large festivals in Glen-Rhodes history, celebrating the end of religious corruption in the Federal Parliament) up to those individual member states to decide, then.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
Regional Delegate, Jordia

[Sionis Prioratus]

I want to make this statute very narrow on purpose, so as not to run afoul the "Freedom of Expression Act",

Hr'rmm, surely we can either ban all such forms of intimidation, or we can ban none of them, but the resolution in question is not so selective in itself that it allows banning "'cross-burning" alone out of all the possible ways of trying to intimidate minority groups?

Point is, absolutely nothing in this text precludes other would-be resolutions to try to address the other "possible ways". Trying to accomodate all the other "possible ways" is noble and I encourage it, but certainly there will be foul and malicious cries of overreaching and illegality based on Freedom of Expression and who knows what else, if I should expand the text. Keeping this text narrow is, in my opinion, wise. Other "possible ways" can, and I happen to think they should, be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Yours,

[Buffett and Colbert]

This resolution doesn't give much of an argument for the effects of cross burning or why it should be illegal. You should place more emphasis on the "moral trauma" etc etc of it. You also don't specify what "criminal" might imply. That word could be interpreted loosely. I personally think this resolution detracts from a group's rights to perform certain rituals or protest against a group or institution. This would favor one group over another and pave the way to make Christianity a state or mandatory religion. And as expressed by many on this forum, cross burning is part of their tradition. As long as it does not bring PHYSICAL harm to any person, it should be allowed. This is why I would not vote for this resolution. Oh if you want this to be passed you should also put in a clause or two about affirming the right to religion, etc etc.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I want to make this statute very narrow on purpose, so as not to run afoul the "Freedom of Expression Act",

Hr'rmm, surely we can either ban all such forms of intimidation, or we can ban none of them, but the resolution in question is not so selective in itself that it allows banning "'cross-burning" alone out of all the possible ways of trying to intimidate minority groups?

I quite agree with Bears Armed. If you ban cross burning, you must ban the burning (and by the way don't just say burning, use something that implies all defamation) of all religious artifacts and symbols, etc etc.

I quite like using "etc etc," huh?

[Ordo Drakul]

If someone is burning a cross to threaten another, aren't they already guilty of vandalism, and thus likely to conduct such activity under secrecy? It seems apparent that this legislation is just "feelgoodism"-i.e., it's already illegal as vandalism, but let's make it more illegal to show what good people we are in opposing it.

I would suggest that those nations as have hate groups indulging in these practices are already tracking down these crimes as they happen, and any ban would only prevent those individuals or groups as would use cross burning for social commentary or protest. As our nation believes in free speech as opposed to free speech so long as you agree with me, we could not and will not support this legislation.

[Absolvability]

I quite agree with Bears Armed. If you ban cross burning, you must ban the burning (and by the way don't just say burning, use something that implies all defamation) of all religious artifacts and symbols, etc etc.

Nobody else thinks this is akin to banning flag-burning, huh? Or thinks this is a violation of freedom of expression however narrow we make our scope?

The author confined this proposal to ethnic minorities... which is why, at first, I said it wasn't a big enough problem (considering all the anti-discrimination resolutions already in effect,) to warrant further legislation. I say let each member nation build a reasonable police force to help enforce what is already mandated.

If we start ranting about religious symbols this is going to take a terrible turn.

[Maerngau]

If someone is burning a cross to threaten another, aren't they already guilty of vandalism, and thus likely to conduct such activity under secrecy? It seems apparent that this legislation is just "feelgoodism"-i.e., it's already illegal as vandalism, but let's make it more illegal to show what good people we are in opposing it.

I would suggest that those nations as have hate groups indulging in these practices are already tracking down these crimes as they happen, and any ban would only prevent those individuals or groups as would use cross burning for social commentary or protest. As our nation believes in free speech as opposed to free speech so long as you agree with me, we could not and will not support this legislation.

It isn't vandalism if the group that owns the cross is the group burning it.

[Maerngau]

I can't support this proposal, though I certainly agree with it. There has been sufficient anti-discrimination legislation passed through this Assembly to make me think that burning crosses for such purposes is already outlawed... even if nobody provided the specific example of 'burning crosses.'

But lets say it does happen... well, it's pretty stupid, but let the idiots do what they want. I wouldn't ban burning crosses any more than I would ban burning flags. For the same reasons. I understand the whole 'in case of intimidation,' or whatever... I just... don't really think that happens. Or, if it does, I don't think this resolution would help it anymore than all the other stuff that exists in the same vein.

Maerngau agrees with Absolvability on this issue.

Intimidation, threats, and calls to immediate violence are the problem here, NOT the method of expressing them.

Maerngau most strenuously objects to this proposal.

[Bears Armed]

I quite agree with Bears Armed. If you ban cross burning, you must ban the burning (and by the way don't just say burning, use something that implies all defamation) of all religious artifacts and symbols, etc etc.

Nobody else thinks this is akin to banning flag-burning, huh? Or thinks this is a violation of freedom of expression however narrow we make our scope?

The author confined this proposal to ethnic minorities... which is why, at first, I said it wasn't a big enough problem (considering all the anti-discrimination resolutions already in effect,) to warrant further legislation. I say let each member nation build a reasonable police force to help enforce what is already mandated.

If we start ranting about religious symbols this is going to take a terrible turn.

*(Borrin rubs his stomach in confusion)*

"Hr'rmm, is the cross an 'ethnic' symbol in your nation? We are accustomed to thinking of it as a 'religious' symbol, instead..."

[Maerngau]

I quite agree with Bears Armed. If you ban cross burning, you must ban the burning (and by the way don't just say burning, use something that implies all defamation) of all religious artifacts and symbols, etc etc.

Nobody else thinks this is akin to banning flag-burning, huh? Or thinks this is a violation of freedom of expression however narrow we make our scope?

We do.

We find this proposal and all similar measures repugnant in the extreme.

[Ordo Drakul]

It isn't vandalism if the group that owns the cross is the group burning it.

In my country, they would also have to conduct the burning on their own property-I believe defacing someone's lawn is still vandalism.

[Kelssek]

Perhaps "identifiable group", or "ethnicity" at least, is a better term than "race".

There is an important balance between respect for the rights of persons not to be subject to intimidation and violent acts, and the rights of persons to free expression. As a multicultural and multiethnic nation in which hate crimes such as these can become serious public order problems, Kelssek would err on the side of being restrictive. Other nations may not agree, or may not have these issues, and have the luxury of allowing greater freedom of expression.

In this case, too, burning a cross can signify so many things that it seems really meaningless to single out just one possible method of intimidation, and only for one specific purpose, for international sanction. And under this proposed resolution, it would still be legal to burn crosses if it could be proven, for instance, that the intention was not to intimidate a particular group but a specific person, or for a different motive, say loansharks trying to collect on a debt from a person from the "majority" group.

Therefore, in our opinion, given that this is rather narrow and deals directly with questions of criminal law, this is a national issue.

[Buffett and Colbert]

For this proposal to gain some support, it can't be restricted to cross burning. And the Nation whose name I forget is right; it isn't vandalism if the person/s that are burning it own it.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I will have to oppose this idea because this this draft seems to only cover one area of faith. However, a anti-racism resolution of a mild strength would be a appreciated.

Yours,