Rotwood wrote:Jericho ruffles through the quoted resolutions "That's a pretty loose interpretation, Ambassadors. If practice isn't part of the expression of a religion, it would seem a bit odd. As for GAR #35, it prohibits discrimination, although while you could say 'It can be circumvented by banning religion' that in itself would be discriminatory against religion."
The ability of members of this Assembly to find the loosest possible interpretation of words is nothing short of legendary, Mr. Reigns, as I'm sure you're aware. Have a look now:
(emphasis added)GAR #30 wrote:snip/
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.
[link]
It's clear from the language of expressing one's views, and the tenacious, insistent focus on information, media, and intellectual property concerns, that the purpose of GAR #30 is to mandate freedom of speech; but the word "expression" is rightly used instead to avoid a lot of legal stupidity over the "speech" value of things like songs, paintings, sculpture, cartoons, films, etc. etc. etc. I can "express my religious views" in Upper Tyrannistan without actually having the right to practice them (say, because candles are outlawed, or wood, or the use of water for any purpose other than drinking). Hell, I can see plenty of theocratic states making it lawful to talk about the minority god, since that is "expressing one's religious views;" but drawing a line at actually praying to that god (which is a request for divine favor and arguably a national security risk, to a certain sort of mind, and not a factual discussion of belief systems). This compliance loophole is a lot bigger than many of us seem to appreciate. It's far too easy to draw a bright line between expressing one's views and practicing one's beliefs; where the one is protected speech, and the other is an incitement to disorder or an act of treason.
Even in somewhat less superstitious nations, the practice of sacred rites may be curtailed or suppressed due to anti-drug laws. Where tobacco, cannabis, peyote, alcohol, or other substances are outlawed, many people of various religions face the necessity to either self-stifle their freedom of conscience (risking divine retribution) or break the law (risking criminal retribution). A plain reading of this resolution would remove that terrible choice, as it would require as much loosening of drug laws as would be necessary to allow ministers, priests, shamans, etc. to acquire, possess, and distribute nominal amounts of the relevant entheogens or ritual substances; because simple use can't reasonably be interpreted to infringe on the rights of anyone else. Of course, it would help to write out that requirement explicitly, but it's there whether we point to it or not.
None of that falls under a plain reading of "expressing one's views." Thus this resolution would confer additional, necessary and deserved protections of people's civil rights.
