[DEFEATED] Freedom of Religion

[Excidium Planetis]

Also, you need to add Barbera to your siggy if you're using her more.

OOC: I would, but since she doesn't really have a title, I'm unsure of what to put.

OOC:
"Barbera Warner: Vice Undersecretary to the Ambassador's Aide."

[Araraukar]

But if it amuses you guys, I can get back to it in greentext later.

OOC: Please do. I'd love to see this.

OOC: Check this - directly related, since the faff around this thread is why the hivemind decided to unleash launch its newest creation into public: viewtopic.php?p=30198283#p30198283

[Draconae]

Marcus Valorus strides into the nearly empty room. He addresses his comments to Ambassador Fairburn. "Well, it's been almost two weeks since the last comment. Is it possible for you to submit this, say after Repeal "Quarantine Regulation" comes to vote?"

OOC: Yeah, I know that the council could be a factor, but it has been a rather long time.

Edit: Clarify wording.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Marcus Valorus strides into the nearly empty room. He addresses his comments to Ambassador Fairburn. "Well, it's been almost two weeks since the last comment. Is it possible for you to submit this, say after Repeal "Quarantine Regulation" comes to vote?"

Fairburn: We don't consider a lack of comments to be reason enough to submit. Just ask the Umerians.

OOC: Yeah, I know that the council might delay submissions, but it has been a rather long time.

OOC: I have no idea if this proposal raises any legality issues. We wasted our time arguing over the meanings of active clauses before substantive improvements were made (thanks, Ara ).

[Draconae]

Marcus Valorus strides into the nearly empty room. He addresses his comments to Ambassador Fairburn. "Well, it's been almost two weeks since the last comment. Is it possible for you to submit this, say after Repeal "Quarantine Regulation" comes to vote?"

Fairburn: We don't consider a lack of comments to be reason enough to submit. Just ask the Umerians.

"True. I was just looking over their repeal."

OOC: Yeah, I know that the council might delay submissions, but it has been a rather long time.

OOC: I have no idea if this proposal raises any legality issues. We wasted our time arguing over the meanings of active clauses before substantive improvements were made (thanks, Ara ).

OOC: I don't think it does. But then again, I'm pretty inexperienced.

[Merni]

OOC: Er, hello...

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Er, hello...

OOC: Hey, I've seen drafts which have been dormant for over a year.

Anyway, now is a good time to ask if people can spot any potential legality issues, so fire away.

[Draconae]

OOC: Er, hello...

OOC: Hey, I've seen drafts which have been dormant for over a year.

Anyway, now is a good time to ask if people can spot any potential legality issues, so fire away.

A long time later, Marcus Valorus looks up from his tablet.

"Well, after my crash course in moderator rulings, the only problem I can possibly see would be duplication. You have stated before that you know that clauses Seven and Eight (which I think may now be different numbers) duplicate existing legislation. However, I could see an argument that asserts that Clause Six and Seven are the main clauses in this resolution, and Clause Six is protected by GAR #30 Freedom of Expression, especially since states must protect expression in all available media to all individuals, while Clause Eight is basically covered by GAR #35 Charter of Civil Rights, Article 1, Section C, except for the clarification that the only "compelling practical purpose" would be the one you have stated. And since Clause Seven is only a request, it does not really do much. Anyway, you may have already sorted through this, but that's the only problem I can see."

"Otherwise, category, strength, and other rulings look good."

OOC: I guess this is the same argument that Excidium proposed, but it may be a good idea to discuss it again.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: It has come to our attention that around this time of year, various Ambassadors celebrate a religious festival known as 'Christmas'. You may celebrate whatever you wish to celebrate within your own chambers, but celebrating it in the Debating Chamber compromises the religious neutrality of this august assembly. We hope that by passing this proposal, we may once again be able to secularise the World Assembly.

[Tinhampton]

Jamie Williamson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: I do not see anything in that resolution which mandates the secularisation of these Debating Chambers. And also, I don't think that the WA has ever had a secular agenda. For conclusions, I redirect you to Clause 10, Merry Christmas, and please excuse me for a while...

[Bakhton]

And also, I don't think that the WA has ever had a secular agenda.

"The resolution GA #374, 'Rule of Law' mandates that 'all persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation,' which can be interpreted, as it is by this court, for a legally non-preferentialist and hands-off viewpoint in international law by demanding equality of enforcement. We have not had any resolutions regarding the establishment or support of religion, however this clause would seem to support that all religions, if the state is to deal with them, are to be dealt with equally under the law. Though this interpretation is mild and not agreed by all members of the court, it is the current opinion of our justices. In Bakhton, there is a complete separation of church because that's a hassle."

[Araraukar]

Dunno about other ambassadors, but I'm off to celebrate a non-religious joulu instead. If you really want any meaningful criticism or commentary on this one, you need to hold off from submitting it, until the effects of overeating have passed.

OOC: I can log into Giant Bats with my smartphone, so you might get a comment before I get back, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Wallenburg]

Barbera: It has come to our attention that around this time of year, various Ambassadors celebrate a religious festival known as 'Christmas'. You may celebrate whatever you wish to celebrate within your own chambers, but celebrating it in the Debating Chamber compromises the religious neutrality of this august assembly. We hope that by passing this proposal, we may once again be able to secularise the World Assembly.

"This proposal would secularize nothing. Clause nine is quite clear about that."

[Excidium Planetis]

Barbera: It has come to our attention that around this time of year, various Ambassadors celebrate a religious festival known as 'Christmas'. You may celebrate whatever you wish to celebrate within your own chambers, but celebrating it in the Debating Chamber compromises the religious neutrality of this august assembly. We hope that by passing this proposal, we may once again be able to secularise the World Assembly.

"Christmas is a religious festival?" Blackbourne asks, quite confused.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: It has come to our attention that around this time of year, various Ambassadors celebrate a religious festival known as 'Christmas'. You may celebrate whatever you wish to celebrate within your own chambers, but celebrating it in the Debating Chamber compromises the religious neutrality of this august assembly. We hope that by passing this proposal, we may once again be able to secularise the World Assembly.

"This proposal would secularize nothing. Clause nine is quite clear about that."

Barbera: Does Clause Ten not secularise the World Assembly, Ambassador Ogenbond?

[Aclion]

Barbera: It has come to our attention that around this time of year, various Ambassadors celebrate a religious festival known as 'Christmas'. You may celebrate whatever you wish to celebrate within your own chambers, but celebrating it in the Debating Chamber compromises the religious neutrality of this august assembly. We hope that by passing this proposal, we may once again be able to secularise the World Assembly.

"Christmas is a religious festival?" Blackbourne asks, quite confused.

"In some countries it is. I know there are still a couple people who celebrate it as the anniversary of Christ's birth. Even so I'd question the claim that this makes the entire celebration religious, given that the party had nothing to do with that and nonchristians seem to have no trouble taking part."

Barbera: Does Clause Ten not secularise the World Assembly, Ambassador Ogenbond?

"Ten only applies to the resolution. It does nothing to secularize the GA as a whole"

[Excidium Planetis]

Barbera: Does Clause Ten not secularise the World Assembly, Ambassador Ogenbond?

"Of course not." Blackbourne replies. "Clause Ten says:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

"It does not prevent future resolutions from being interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of religious beliefs."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Barbera: Does Clause Ten not secularise the World Assembly, Ambassador Ogenbond?

"Of course not." Blackbourne replies. "Clause Ten says:

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

"It does not prevent future resolutions from being interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of religious beliefs."

"Yet, this is affirming the idea that World Assembly should not have a position on "the validity or lack thereof, of" religious beliefs. Which seems to be a secular position to take by my understanding." Ambassador Everett offers while sipping vintage flowernog and reading books during the annual Festival of Eternal Light. "This clause could be read as limiting the scope of future resolution from taking a position on religious validity, mostly out of fear of contradictions, while not explicitly doing so. Many authors take their cues on extant WA positions from these clarifications and beliefs so as not to undermine or contradict existing resolutions. Even if it isn't mandating that the GA membership be secular, it is offering a secular understanding of the international position on religious beliefs, mainly that the WA should not be in the business of deciding whose 'God' or whatever is more true, or valid. And thus overall it would make the institution more secular, even if only by a little."

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Barbera: It has come to our attention that around this time of year, various Ambassadors celebrate a religious festival known as 'Christmas'.

Brother Maynard: "And what's wrong with Christmas? ... Sorry I can't stay for your answer but there's a Hanukkah party in one of the embassy offices and I'm late."

Brother Maynard leaves the chanber singing "dreidel, dreidel, dreidel ..."

[Aclion]

"Yet, this is affirming the idea that World Assembly should not have a position on "the validity or lack thereof, of" religious beliefs. Which seems to be a secular position to take by my understanding." Ambassador Everett offers while sipping vintage flowernog and reading books during the annual Festival of Eternal Light. "This clause could be read as limiting the scope of future resolution from taking a position on religious validity, mostly out of fear of contradictions, while not explicitly doing so. Many authors take their cues on extant WA positions from these clarifications and beliefs so as not to undermine or contradict existing resolutions. Even if it isn't mandating that the GA membership be secular, it is offering a secular understanding of the international position on religious beliefs, mainly that the WA should not be in the business of deciding whose 'God' or whatever is more true, or valid. And thus overall it would make the institution more secular, even if only by a little."

And? Why should the WA be legislating on whose religion is valid or not? That's hardly the business of an international legislative body and it's nothing we've taken as part of our mandate.

OOC: leaving aside the issue of forced roleplay and ideological bans.

[Bakhton]

And? Why should the WA be legislating on whose religion is valid or not? That's hardly the business of an international legislative body and it's nothing we've taken as part of our mandate.

"We concur. The opinion of our nation's court as to the intent of the World Assembly is to do do what is necessary for the proliferation of equality and stability (GA #2). The limitations of the court are largely to protect diversity of government, economics, and culture. All of these things become inconsequential to a case once a violation of a citizen's fundamental rights enters the picture, as we have often seen in this august assembly in passing legislation for the spread of standards of sapient rights (GA #7, #27, #29, #30, #35, etc.). It is in keeping with the spirit of these passed resolutions to extend protection from discrimination to religious (edit: or nonreligious) individuals, and their practices and means of worship."

[Wallenburg]

"Of course not." Blackbourne replies. "Clause Ten says:

"It does not prevent future resolutions from being interpreted as a statement by the World Assembly on the validity of religious beliefs."

"Yet, this is affirming the idea that World Assembly should not have a position on "the validity or lack thereof, of" religious beliefs. Which seems to be a secular position to take by my understanding." Ambassador Everett offers while sipping vintage flowernog and reading books during the annual Festival of Eternal Light. "This clause could be read as limiting the scope of future resolution from taking a position on religious validity, mostly out of fear of contradictions, while not explicitly doing so. Many authors take their cues on extant WA positions from these clarifications and beliefs so as not to undermine or contradict existing resolutions. Even if it isn't mandating that the GA membership be secular, it is offering a secular understanding of the international position on religious beliefs, mainly that the WA should not be in the business of deciding whose 'God' or whatever is more true, or valid. And thus overall it would make the institution more secular, even if only by a little."

"The tenth clause does nothing of the sort. It simply states that this proposal specifically does not establish any official statement on which, if any, religious beliefs are valid. It does not suggest that this ought to carry over into a general principle for the World Assembly."

[Draconae]

Ambassador Valorus walks in wearing a Santa hat and drinking some eggnog.

"Merry Christmas!" he says, before seeing the debate topic and doing a bit of a double-take.

"Yet, this is affirming the idea that World Assembly should not have a position on "the validity or lack thereof, of" religious beliefs. Which seems to be a secular position to take by my understanding." Ambassador Everett offers while sipping vintage flowernog and reading books during the annual Festival of Eternal Light. "This clause could be read as limiting the scope of future resolution from taking a position on religious validity, mostly out of fear of contradictions, while not explicitly doing so. Many authors take their cues on extant WA positions from these clarifications and beliefs so as not to undermine or contradict existing resolutions. Even if it isn't mandating that the GA membership be secular, it is offering a secular understanding of the international position on religious beliefs, mainly that the WA should not be in the business of deciding whose 'God' or whatever is more true, or valid. And thus overall it would make the institution more secular, even if only by a little."

"The tenth clause does nothing of the sort. It simply states that this proposal specifically does not establish any official statement on which, if any, religious beliefs are valid. It does not suggest that this ought to carry over into a general principle for the World Assembly."

"The delegate for States of Glory seems to have changed the part of the resolution your were talking about. The new version reads:"

DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the validity of religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

"Christmas is a religious festival?" Blackbourne asks, quite confused.

"In some countries it is. I know there are still a couple people who celebrate it as the anniversary of Christ's birth. Even so I'd question the claim that this makes the entire celebration religious, given that the party had nothing to do with that and nonchristians seem to have no trouble taking part."

"Agreed. While many in Draconae do celebrate Christ's birth as part of Christmas, you can hardly argue that because part of the celebration is religious all of it should be removed from the World Assembly Debating Chambers. Besides, this resolution doesn't do that in the slightest. So Merry Christmas!"

Barbera: It has come to our attention that around this time of year, various Ambassadors celebrate a religious festival known as 'Christmas'. You may celebrate whatever you wish to celebrate within your own chambers, but celebrating it in the Debating Chamber compromises the religious neutrality of this august assembly. We hope that by passing this proposal, we may once again be able to secularise the World Assembly.

"When has the WA ever not been secular? #MakeLegislationSecularAgain?"

[Kitzerland]

"Hrmm. I must say, I'm not a huge fan of clause 7." says Whiskers. Peering over his ponce-nez. "Section one prohibits harm, but is this harm physical? Emotional? Mental? If it's only physical, does that mean that driving other people insane (In a literal sense) is protected by the resolution? If it is mental, how would you determine the extent of such injuries? And does this mean that nation's such as mine own, who have a strong belief that suicide is bad, must watch as our populace kill themselves, being unable to do anything, as it illegalizes only "Harm to others"? What about emotional damage? Or discrimination? If a religion encourages hate speech and discrimination, can I not do anything to them? "

He then peers more closely at the document.

"Oh, hold on, it says here that I wouldn't actually have to do any of that. So discriminating against religion is fine, as long as it is "Otherwise prohibited by law" What does that even mean? As long as my discrimination is a law, it's perfectly fine? Does this then mean that religions are the same as every single other organization in how I should deal with them, namely, regulating them and passing restrictions on practices that are dangerous, or, actually, for any other reason? If I put it in a law, am I allowed to discriinate against "the church of blue shirts" by outlawing religious individuals from wearing blue shirts if the letters t-h-e-c-h-u-r-c-h-o-f-b-l-u-e-s-h-i-r-t and s appear in their religions name? I wouldn't be discriminating against any specific religion, the law would also affect such non-existent organizations such as "TheLOL church of blue shirts" and "The (This proposal is stupid) church of blue shirts", and those organizations could be completely unrelated to religion, making it clear that this law is not, in fact, religious discrimination. This proposal simply doesn't do anything. In that case, why must we legislate upon this? The only true effect of your resolution is to prohibit your nation from doing things your nation doesn't do. I can't see why that has any value."

OOC: By the way, whatever happened to "Banishment Ban"?

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Oh, hold on, it says here that I wouldn't actually have to do any of that. So discriminating against religion is fine, as long as it is "Otherwise prohibited by law" What does that even mean? As long as my discrimination is a law, it's perfectly fine? Does this then mean that religions are the same as every single other organization in how I should deal with them, namely, regulating them and passing restrictions on practices that are dangerous, or, actually, for any other reason? If I put it in a law, am I allowed to discriinate against "the church of blue shirts" by outlawing religious individuals from wearing blue shirts if the letters t-h-e-c-h-u-r-c-h-o-f-b-l-u-e-s-h-i-r-t and s appear in their religions name? I wouldn't be discriminating against any specific religion, the law would also affect such non-existent organizations such as "TheLOL church of blue shirts" and "The (This proposal is stupid) church of blue shirts", and those organizations could be completely unrelated to religion, making it clear that this law is not, in fact, religious discrimination. This proposal simply doesn't do anything. In that case, why must we legislate upon this? The only true effect of your resolution is to prohibit your nation from doing things your nation doesn't do. I can't see why that has any value."

I...genuinely cannot understand what it is you're trying to argue. Could you please rephrase that?

OOC: By the way, whatever happened to "Banishment Ban"?

The same thing that happened to all the other proposals I've drafted: No-one bothered to comment on it so now it's gathering cobwebs. I'll revive it eventually.