[Draft] Secularism in Governance

[The Sheika]

OOC:
Prohibition 5 is a substantial and necessary part of the draft. I don't particularly care that you'd support it without it, because it isn't going anywhere. I will repeat my request; If you actually have a legality challenge to make, fucking make it and stop playing fucking games with it.

Hey Buddy. Cut it out with the flaming. No one wants to listen to your incessant insults and personal attacks.

OOC: In this case, Tinfect is well within his rights to defend his draft. There is no personal attack or insult; merely a "If you really feel there is something illegal, challenge it".

EDIT: Red text removed...not mod.

[Tinfect Continental States]

OOC: In this case, Tinfect is well within his rights to defend his draft. There is no personal attack or insult; merely a "If you really feel there is something illegal, challenge it".

OOC:
This, basically.
But on that note...

Hey Buddy. Cut it out with the flaming. No one wants to listen to your incessant insults and personal attacks.

If you think I'm flaming and making personal attacks, go make a report in Moderation.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: In this case, Tinfect is well within his rights to defend his draft. There is no personal attack or insult; merely a "If you really feel there is something illegal, challenge it".

OOC:
This, basically.
But on that note...

Hey Buddy. Cut it out with the flaming. No one wants to listen to your incessant insults and personal attacks.

If you think I'm flaming and making personal attacks, go make a report in Moderation.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=421290

[Tinfect]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=421290

Yes, I am aware of that now. Next time, don't try and intimidate people and instead let Moderation do their job.

[The Telsar Alliance]

A middle-aged man in a business suit, apparently of Japanese descent, materializes in this odd room, apparently halfway through a speech.

"... in conclusion, though in agreement ideologically, on the principal of national sovereignty in government decision, I, on behalf of my employers and the planet of Enogon, must voice my opposition to this measure.

"Additionally, I fail to see how this issue is of interstellar importance."

He looks around the room as he finishes. "Good God, where the hell am I?"

"Ahem." The man speaks up. "While this is all very fascinating, can someone please tell me where I am currently standing? What's all this discussion about?"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

IC:

"Woo! Damn right, we need this law in the World Assembly! It is about damn time. Too long we've stood idly by while theocrats, jihadists, and crusader states ran rampant over the democratic rights of their peoples. We're right with ya, uh, Ambassador... say, this is pretty good for a delegation ain't never been in here before. Welcome!"

---

OOC:

You've very artfully dodged what I think are the most obvious tripwires - but it still looks to me like Clauses 3 and 4 (both separately and together) constitute an ideological ban on theocracies.

Prohibits,
...
2. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law promoting or otherwise supporting any religious belief above others,
3. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law establishing a requirement regarding the acceptance or rejection of any religious belief, or membership within any religious institution, as a prerequisite for holding any position within a government office or industry,

The rest of these I think fall under the same rubric GenSec identified with the "bundle of sticks" metaphor in the Patent ruling. But to me the powers prohibited by those two clauses seem much more central to theocracies than, say, the rejection of the concept of patents (narrowly speaking, as narrowly applied) is to communism. In character, my peeps want you to basically run tanks over the Papal States and doubtless be greeted as liberators, but OOC I'm not sure this is quite legal yet.

[Tinfect Continental States]

"Ahem." The man speaks up. "While this is all very fascinating, can someone please tell me where I am currently standing? What's all this discussion about?"

"You're in the World Assembly Sir Representative," starts Illaren, from a rather inconspicuous position behind Vilen, "And this is the drafting chamber for our legislation entitled 'Secularism in Governance'. Are you quite certain you are alright? One does not normally end up places without remembering how."

"Woo! Damn right, we need this law in the World Assembly! It is about damn time. Too long we've stood idly by while theocrats, jihadists, and crusader states ran rampant over the democratic rights of their peoples. We're right with ya, uh, Ambassador... say, this is pretty good for a delegation ain't never been in here before. Welcome!"

"Finally! Thank you!" says Vilen, "I was beginning to think the amount of reasonable voices here would drowned out in the repeated nonsense coming out of those sympathetic to lunatics." She pauses for a moment, "Although I must note, we have been here for... well, quite some time." This statement is punctuated by the Union delegation appearing to flicker in and out of existence for several seconds, "Remember..." she gestures vaguely towards the still-present delegation from Bitely "And that debacle, the... Well, it isn't coming to me right now but I am sure there is record of the nonsense somewhere."

"There's another concern," Inan says, after a moment of glancing at Iksana to see if he would speak up first. "If there's a governmental position that deals directly with a minority religion in our nation, say the Minister of Bheidor Affairs, which would be responsible for maintaining open communication with and ensuring the rights of the members of that religion. Wouldn't it make sense to require that the person in that position be a member of said religion, so that it doesn't down the line turn into a case of the powerful speaking over the powerless?"

"Anyway, I must apologize to the Delegation of Essu Beti, we did not intend to leave your concerns, we were merely... distracted, by certain delegations. In the situation you describe, assuming it is an appointed decision, simple discrimination in hiring would be prohibited. However, it can be considered that adherence to that particular religion, or at least a depthful and understanding knowledge of the religion would be a quite reasonably necessary qualification for the position; in the same sense that one cannot discriminate against those of a particular race when determining who will hold a research lead position within a scientific effort, but it is entirely reasonable to only consider those candidates with sufficient knowledge in the relevant field of the research. This will unfortunately almost certainly lead to additional paperwork, but such is the price one pays for a developed society."

---

OOC:

You've very artfully dodged what I think are the most obvious tripwires - but it still looks to me like Clauses 3 and 4 (both separately and together) constitute an ideological ban on theocracies.

[box]Prohibits,
...
2. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law promoting or otherwise supporting any religious belief above others,
3. Member-States from creating or maintaining any law establishing a requirement regarding the acceptance or rejection of any religious belief, or membership within any religious institution, as a prerequisite for holding any position within a government office or industry,

The rest of these I think fall under the same rubric GenSec identified with the "bundle of sticks" metaphor in the Patent ruling. But to me the powers prohibited by those two clauses seem much more central to theocracies than, say, the rejection of the concept of patents (narrowly speaking, as narrowly applied) is to communism. In character, my peeps want you to basically run tanks over the Papal States and doubtless be greeted as liberators, but OOC I'm not sure this is quite legal yet.

I'm at a loss to how a draft which, barring those parts edited, was written entirely in one pass on a whim in the middle of the night can be described as Artful, but I will take that happily. And I will note that the UTCS would be more than happy to join SL in that, as doing exactly that is what resulted in the UTCS in the first place.

As for the question of legality, I'd have to agree that it falls under the metaphor, but in the other direction. Prohibition 2 is arguably just retreading the same ground as CoCR, as positive discrimination towards a particular religion and its followers is equivalent negative discrimination against everyone else.

I am aware that Prohibition 3 is, at best, a risky bet, but I'd prefer to see if can be rehabilitated rather than cutting it away outright, as otherwise the Draft has quite minimal effect.

[Covenstone]

They could, but why should they? Why should any government have to change its entire ideology just because you personally find it offensive?

"I do not find it offensive. I find it backwards, superstitious, pretentious, and oppressive."

Enough personal attacks, Can we please stay on topic?
I believe this proposal is too far reach and shouldn't see the light of day.

"Its hardly an attack, and the success of methods used to scuttle this proposal is perfectly on topic. At any rate, the C.D.S.P. is in full support of the measures included. Religion is something best left in the past, after all. And, whats more, it looks like it could very well be legal."

And there you have it. This isn't about securing equal rights for minorities. This is about pushing an agenda. About one tiny group of nations forcing another group of nations to abandon their long held beliefs and throw them away just so another group of nations can feel good about themselves.

I figured it wouldn't take too long until you admitted it, but I would have thought a member of GenSec could at least stay neutral on the topic. I guess even that was too much to ask.

[Attempted Socialism]

"We would like to reaffirm our support for the draft. In the Solidarity Movement we have already freed both politics and people from the shackles of religion, and would like to see the same for our brothers and sisters worldwide. A note of contention on the debate, however, is required. Certain delegations have argued that this would be against either the Charter of Civil Rights or Freedom of Expression. We disagree vehemently. This proposal would limit undue influence from religion by prohibiting political actors from accepting assistance from religious institutions. No rights are being infringed there. This proposal also spells out that all people, regardless of faith or lack thereof, are equal in the eyes of the state. This is going a bit further than the Charter of Civil Rights, that allows for discrimination on 'compelling practical purposes' and allows for example support of specific religious institutions, either through financial support, legitimacy or other privileges."

"This proposal would clarify that religions cannot receive preferential treatment, even under the Charter, and that the state cannot regard religion as 'compelling practical purpose'. We see both as positive measures, minor steps in the right direction, and will vote for the draft as-is."

[Wrapper]

I figured it wouldn't take too long until you admitted it, but I would have thought a member of GenSec could at least stay neutral on the topic. I guess even that was too much to ask.

GenSec members, as well as moderators, are still allowed to play the game. There's no reason why SP can't voice an opinion, push an agenda, or discuss legality in-character, and still make impartial decisions as a member of GenSec.

[Wallenburg]

And there you have it. This isn't about securing equal rights for minorities. This is about pushing an agenda. About one tiny group of nations forcing another group of nations to abandon their long held beliefs and throw them away just so another group of nations can feel good about themselves.

"You could make exactly the same argument about banning slavery. We have still banned it, because it is a barbaric, backwards practice that even the most primitive civilizations would be better off without."

I figured it wouldn't take too long until you admitted it, but I would have thought a member of GenSec could at least stay neutral on the topic. I guess even that was too much to ask.

"Ambassador Bell is perfectly free to have his own opinions. If you would rather he be a passionless drone, please take that up with World Assembly Administration."

[Bears Armed]

They HAVE equal rights. GAR #35 grants them those rights, in no uncertain terms and in repeated clauses.

OOC: Except in a theocracy non-religious people (and "heretics") would be banned from partaking the state functions, politics and probably civil service. At least if I followed your and Bears' earlier arguments correctly.

OOC. My opinion:
GAR#35 was submitted & passed as 'Human Rights', not as 'Furtherment of Democracy', and therefore -- in the absence of a clause specifying otherwise, and in light of the rule that proposed resolutions contents must fit their designated categories -- shouldn't be taken to affect to have any significant effect on political rights on top of its effect on 'civil' rights.
And if GAR#35 had included a clause saying that it applied fully to political rights, as well as to civil rights, then it would have been illegal both for (a) contents not aligned with category (because effectively it would have been trying to have 'Significant' or even 'Strong' effects in two categories at once) and (b) effectively being an ideological ban on just about all non-democratic forms of government.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I do not find it offensive. I find it backwards, superstitious, pretentious, and oppressive."

"Its hardly an attack, and the success of methods used to scuttle this proposal is perfectly on topic. At any rate, the C.D.S.P. is in full support of the measures included. Religion is something best left in the past, after all. And, whats more, it looks like it could very well be legal."

And there you have it. This isn't about securing equal rights for minorities. This is about pushing an agenda. About one tiny group of nations forcing another group of nations to abandon their long held beliefs and throw them away just so another group of nations can feel good about themselves.

I figured it wouldn't take too long until you admitted it, but I would have thought a member of GenSec could at least stay neutral on the topic. I guess even that was too much to ask.

OOC: that was in character. Not out of character. Learn to tell the difference between the two. For your convenience, I'll emphasize the difference moving forward.

My IC ambassador has an agenda. That is not the same thing as Tinfect, IC or OOC, having an agenda or me having an OOC agenda. I realize it's hard to focus on nuance, but you'll have to give it a go. Hopefully my emphasis helps.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Alright, let's see what the cat dragged in.

Applauding the great strides made by this Assembly in ensuring the rights of the citizens of Member-States,

Neville: This proposal does nothing but restrict the rights of citizens of member states.

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
Religious Institutions as formal organizations with purposes specifically relating to religious activities, such as the establishment of places of worship, the training of clergy, or proselytism,

Neville: Under this definition, universities that offer theology courses and construction companies both count as religious institutions.

Prohibits,
Member-States from creating or maintaining any law pertaining to the legitimacy or acceptance of any religious belief,

Neville: Our government accepts that Pastafarianism is a religious belief. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Pastafarianism is a religious belief, at least to my knowledge. This proposal would prevent us from stating the most widely-accepted of facts.

Member-States from enforcing the acceptance of any state-run or affiliated religion, or religious institution,

Fairburn: "I do not accept this religious institution! I'm going to destroy this religious building!" "You're under arrest for vandalism!" "You can't arrest me for refusing to accept a religious institution! You'd be in violation of WA law!"

Ensuring that fanatics deal with the fact that other religions exist in our nation is necessary for social cohesion. This clause, as written, is unacceptable.

Candidates for positions in government from accepting endorsements, contributions, or benefits from any religious institution or authority,

Fairburn: "We, the Commonwealth Construction Company, endorse Mr. X for President." "Construction companies are a religious institution! Arrested for violating WA law!"

In any case, why should candidates be allowed to accept endorsements, contribution and/or benefits from non-religious institutions, such as corporations and super-PACs, but not religious institutions, not even local chapels that serve five people? Denying contributions from religious institutions in particular is discrimination against the religious on the grounds that they are religious, and thus we see the true intentions behind this proposal.

Member-States from classifying religious organizations as separate from non-religious for-, or non-profit enterprises

Fairburn: Yet we are required to ban religious organisations from making political donations but not non-religious organisations. Your proposal is self-contradictory and utter rubbish to boot. We suggest delivering this waste of paper to the nearest recycling centre.

[Covenstone]

And there you have it. This isn't about securing equal rights for minorities. This is about pushing an agenda. About one tiny group of nations forcing another group of nations to abandon their long held beliefs and throw them away just so another group of nations can feel good about themselves.

I figured it wouldn't take too long until you admitted it, but I would have thought a member of GenSec could at least stay neutral on the topic. I guess even that was too much to ask.

OOC: that was in character. Not out of character. Learn to tell the difference between the two. For your convenience, I'll emphasize the difference moving forward.

My IC ambassador has an agenda. That is not the same thing as Tinfect, IC or OOC, having an agenda or me having an OOC agenda. I realize it's hard to focus on nuance, but you'll have to give it a go. Hopefully my emphasis helps.

You are trying to drive theocracies out of The World Assembly. So forgive me if the tiny nuances of the situation escape me.

[Covenstone]

I realise I am getting petty now, but quite honestly this deserves nothing less than utter childishness as a response. Originally the author claimed it was about "securing the rights of minority religions" but if that were the case it would not ban ALL religions (sorry -
"religious institutions") from taking part in democracy and continue to allow atheist institutions to do the same thing. Based on that part alone it is clear it is about getting rid of religion altogether, regardless of what religion it is.

Which given the preamble waffles on about some bollocks suggesting it is trying to "ensure the rights of member citizens" I find highly hypocritical and highly insulting to the intelligence of anyone who can read and anyone who isn't a hypocrite.

Candidates for positions in government from accepting endorsements, contributions, or benefits from any religious institution or authority,

So if I, as Queen of the Witches (an individual) want to endorse someone, I would now be forbidden because I am considered a religious authority (being Queen of The Witches - the Head Witch of All Witches in Covenstone)? Or does being an individual exclude me from being an authority? (<ooc> Most people would qualify the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and The Pope as religious Authorities, including me and I am not a Chrisitian nor a Catholic </ooc>).

Or could I endorse someone as Albertine Winters, but not as Queen of The Witches? And just say "I, Al Winters, endorse Catalinia McFerretnuts, for this post but I am not doing it as Queen of The Witches because that is clearly illegal, wink, wink"?

And, as a previous poster asked, WHY can't religious groups endorse or raise money for political candidates? What do you have against them? Specifically? Given your supposed desire to make all religions equal, I would understand if you wanted to put a ban on only certain religious groups/authorities endorsing candidates, but to put a blanket ban on ALL religious groups while letting the atheists, agnostics and heathens continue to do it seems to be targeting religion specifically, rather than trying to protect minority religions.

So why are you trying to stop religious groups from endorsing candidates or raising money?

I was going to let this all go, but then I decided, fuck it. I really have nothing better to do right now, and being annoying is actually turning out to be kind of fun. Plus if we can't hold people accountable for what they say then what is the point of us?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: that was in character. Not out of character. Learn to tell the difference between the two. For your convenience, I'll emphasize the difference moving forward.

My IC ambassador has an agenda. That is not the same thing as Tinfect, IC or OOC, having an agenda or me having an OOC agenda. I realize it's hard to focus on nuance, but you'll have to give it a go. Hopefully my emphasis helps.

You are trying to drive theocracies out of The World Assembly. So forgive me if the tiny nuances of the situation escape me.

OOC: My character is anti-religion. That's his dream scenario. I am roleplaying accordingly. I don't see why this is shocking, and I don't see why this is in any way relevant to my OOC opinion or GenSec position. Do you struggle with the concept of roleplaying? Or just with this roleplaying scenario?

[Fauxia]

You are trying to drive theocracies out of The World Assembly. So forgive me if the tiny nuances of the situation escape me.

OOC: My character is anti-religion. That's his dream scenario. I am roleplaying accordingly. I don't see why this is shocking, and I don't see why this is in any way relevant to my OOC opinion or GenSec position. Do you struggle with the concept of roleplaying? Or just with this roleplaying scenario?

That doesn't mean he can vote for an illegal proposal that fully outlaws theocracies.

Clause two also, to me, is a meta gaming violation, because it illegalized state religions. At least that's my interpretation. The recognition of one religion as a state religion is promoting one above others.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: My character is anti-religion. That's his dream scenario. I am roleplaying accordingly. I don't see why this is shocking, and I don't see why this is in any way relevant to my OOC opinion or GenSec position. Do you struggle with the concept of roleplaying? Or just with this roleplaying scenario?

That doesn't mean he can vote for an illegal proposal that fully outlaws theocracies.

OOC: It does, actually. Just because it may (and I don't think it necessarily is, for the record) be illegal doesn't mean my character isn't in favor of it. Merely that it is a pipe dream. Bell also supports humanitarian interventions, which are illegal under GAR#2.

[Fauxia]

That doesn't mean he can vote for an illegal proposal that fully outlaws theocracies.

OOC: It does, actually. Just because it may (and I don't think it necessarily is, for the record) be illegal doesn't mean my character isn't in favor of it. Merely that it is a pipe dream. Bell also supports humanitarian interventions, which are illegal under GAR#2.

Well, it might not be illegal anymore, although, I edited my last post and pointed something else out. But the proposal is different now, it was illegal.

[Fauxia]

Furthermore, illegalities from other resolutions cannot be compared to things that violate the proposal rules, which can't be changed by majority vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: It does, actually. Just because it may (and I don't think it necessarily is, for the record) be illegal doesn't mean my character isn't in favor of it. Merely that it is a pipe dream. Bell also supports humanitarian interventions, which are illegal under GAR#2.

Well, it might not be illegal anymore, although, I edited my last post and pointed something else out. But the proposal is different now, it was illegal.

Furthermore, illegalities from other resolutions cannot be compared to things that violate the proposal rules, which can't be changed by majority vote.

OOC: Which isn't relevant to my character's support.

[Tinfect Continental States]

This proposal does nothing but restrict the rights of citizens of member states.

"Its restriction of the ability of theocratic Governments to oppress their citizens would, in the end, result in a more free society, Ambassador. Law does not exist in a vacuum."

Under this definition, universities that offer theology courses and construction companies both count as religious institutions.

"Only if they specialize in religious activity. The definition carries a requirement of specificity."

Our government accepts that Pastafarianism is a religious belief. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Pastafarianism is a religious belief, at least to my knowledge. This proposal would prevent us from stating the most widely-accepted of facts.

"I am not entirely certain how Prohibition One, which prevents Member-States from creating or maintain laws which state a certain religion to be a more legitimate faith than others, can be construed as preventing your Government from passing laws acknowledging the existence of a particular religion."

"I do not accept this religious institution! I'm going to destroy this religious building!" "You're under arrest for vandalism!" "You can't arrest me for refusing to accept a religious institution! You'd be in violation of WA law!"

Ensuring that fanatics deal with the fact that other religions exist in our nation is necessary for social cohesion. This clause, as written, is unacceptable.

"That, Ambassador, is not at all what the clause says. It would be entirely unreasonable, silly even, for a Member-State to interpret the clause in such a manner."

"We, the Commonwealth Construction Company, endorse Mr. X for President." "Construction companies are a religious institution! Arrested for violating WA law!"

In any case, why should candidates be allowed to accept endorsements, contribution and/or benefits from non-religious institutions, such as corporations and super-PACs, but not religious institutions, not even local chapels that serve five people? Denying contributions from religious institutions in particular is discrimination against the religious on the grounds that they are religious, and thus we see the true intentions behind this proposal.

"You make a good point, perhaps we should broaden the scope of this draft to non-religious enterprises. Thank you, Ambassador, we will take that into consideration for future drafts."

I realise I am getting petty now, but quite honestly this deserves nothing less than utter childishness as a response.

"In that case, would you prefer to debate with my Niece? I'm sure I could get dispensation. I imagine the experience of crushing you in debate would be quite helpful to her self-esteem."

Originally the author claimed it was about "securing the rights of minority religions" but if that were the case it would not ban ALL religions (sorry - "religious institutions") from taking part in democracy and continue to allow atheist institutions to do the same thing. Based on that part alone it is clear it is about getting rid of religion altogether, regardless of what religion it is.

"One has to recognize the substantial social role a Religious Institution has, especially in Theocratic States. Before the Union, if the Church in Imset said to stop doing something, people stopped doing it, well before it was written into the 'moral law'. That degree of social control is almost entirely unique to religious institutions. As such, it is by no means unreasonable to 'single-out', as it were, religious institutions for this legislation. In any case, as I have stated to another delegation, we will be considering expanding the scope of this legislation."

Which given the preamble waffles on about some bollocks suggesting it is trying to "ensure the rights of member citizens" I find highly hypocritical and highly insulting to the intelligence of anyone who can read and anyone who isn't a hypocrite.

"If you are unable to understand cause-and-effect relations, I suggest looking into remedial education."

So if I, as Queen of the Witches (an individual) want to endorse someone, I would now be forbidden because I am considered a religious authority (being Queen of The Witches - the Head Witch of All Witches in Covenstone)? Or does being an individual exclude me from being an authority?

"Only if you are acting as that religious authority. You can endorse anyone you please, as an independent citizen. Your religious authority cannot be directly leveraged to achieve a political end. The Institution for which you speak when acting as a religious authority cannot back your endorsement, and, in certain circumstances, would effectively be required to deny that it does any such thing."

WHY can't religious groups endorse or raise money for political candidates? What do you have against them? Specifically?

"As stated, the reasoning is the extreme degree of social control religious institutions and authorities have. That degree of control can be used to substantially influence the political systems of Member-States, creating massive voting waves in democratic societies leading to unrepresentative decisions to simple imbalance in voting populations, and direct changes in law in more authoritarian governments."

Given your supposed desire to make all religions equal, I would understand if you wanted to put a ban on only certain religious groups/authorities endorsing candidates, but to put a blanket ban on ALL religious groups while letting the atheists, agnostics and heathens continue to do it seems to be targeting religion specifically, rather than trying to protect minority religions.

"If we let Minority religions engage in these activities, the ultimate outcome would simply be a reversal of the situation. It is vastly better to simply ensure that none of them are directly involved in the political process so that political power cannot be leveraged to defeat one's theological opponents."

[Covenstone]

In the real world, this type of situation has already been ruled on by the courts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

So, technically
I'm not wrong. Clause 5 IS not in line with World Assembly Resolution #30 period. If the GENSEC can't see that this enfrengess on rights granted in WAGA RES. #30 and this proposal goes for a vote I'll have to bring this to the entire WA membership's attention.

OOC: Real world references mean nothing here. So please refrain from using anything of the sort.
IC: Once again, nobody is preventing anybody from expressing themselves. Nobody is telling a clergy member they can't say anything about a political candidate. They can say whatever they want in favor of their chosen candidate. What is being prohibited is the candidate accepting the endorsement of the clergy member. Therefore, no violation of freedom of expression.

Actually, there is an easy way around it. If I (Queen of The Witches) endorse I.P.Freeley for President of the local school board, Mr Freeley can say "We thank Albertine Winters, Queen of The Witches, for her endorsement, and are glad she thinks so highly of us, however under WA law we cannot formally accept this endorsement, so we will limit ourselves to thanks." I would say that passes the magic words test, and does not break this clearly discriminatory prohibition that allows oil barons, arms dealers, ceos, bankers and any number of other disreputable types to involve themselves in politics but keeps the clearly corrupt and and evil religious types out of it (because goddess knows we don't want the evil and corrupt influence of religious types involved in politics when you could have arms dealers getting in on the act!!)

[Wallenburg]

I realise I am getting petty now, but quite honestly this deserves nothing less than utter childishness as a response.

"Ambassador, I am afraid that this debate chamber has not been provided with a kiddie table. I believe that there is a playground on the third floor. Plenty of sand and swings for any growing boy."