NationStates

Although the proposal Secularism in Governance might violate game mechanics, I would like to launch a legality challenge against it on grounds relating to violation of previous General Assembly Resolutions.



Reason 1. It violates GAR #27 - Freedom of Assembly.

Clause 5 of the proposal makes it illegal for Religious Institutions to involve themselves in politics.

I think this violates Clause 1 of Freedom of Assembly says "All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view", which gives any group (regardless of the type of group) the right to assemble to express a view. If a religious group wants to assemble to endorse a candidate, its right to do so is protected under this Clause (providing they do so peacefully).

Reason 2. It violates GAR #155 - Freedom of The Press.

If a newspaper's primary function can be described as religious (an example could be The Watchtower) then arguably it would fall under Clause 5 of this proposal.

Article 2, Clause 5 of GAR #155 forbids censorship of newspapers under any circumstances (except national security, which I do not see this could be classified as), and if a newspaper is not free to endorse or comment on a political campaign because of this new proposal, then I believe it would be an act of censorship and a violation of this clause.


There was going to be one more, but the proposal has been edited since the last time I looked at it

It seems a bit premature to write up a legality challenge to a proposal which is likely to change substantially in the near future.

EDIT: As the original post failed to provide links to the actual resolutions in question, perhaps to make it more difficult to verify claims, here are links to Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of the Press.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It seems a bit premature to write up a legality challenge to a proposal which is likely to change substantially in the near future.

OOC: Agreed. Covenstone, it is a bit weird to lodge a legality challenge that is at a relatively early stage of drafting. If there were similar legality challenges lodged against every draft, in the same manner that you have done here, the World Assembly would be even more choked in red tape than it already is. If you want to suggest changes to the draft, then do it directly, by going to the thread that contains the draft, and post your comments there. Arbitrarily kicking up a stink at this stage is probably not the best course of action.

The New California Republic wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:It seems a bit premature to write up a legality challenge to a proposal which is likely to change substantially in the near future.

OOC: Agreed. Covenstone, it is a bit weird to lodge a legality challenge that is at a relatively early stage of drafting. If there were similar legality challenges lodged against every draft, in the same manner that you have done here, the World Assembly would be even more choked in red tape than it already is. If you want to suggest changes to the draft, then do it directly, by going to the thread that contains the draft, and post your comments there. Arbitrarily kicking up a stink at this stage is probably not the best course of action.

Go read the drafting thread. Then come back here and say that again

(sorry - occ)

Covenstone wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: Agreed. Covenstone, it is a bit weird to lodge a legality challenge that is at a relatively early stage of drafting. If there were similar legality challenges lodged against every draft, in the same manner that you have done here, the World Assembly would be even more choked in red tape than it already is. If you want to suggest changes to the draft, then do it directly, by going to the thread that contains the draft, and post your comments there. Arbitrarily kicking up a stink at this stage is probably not the best course of action.

Go read the drafting thread. Then come back here and say that again

OOC: I have read the thread. It isn't the World Assembly's problem if your comments have been discounted by the author of the draft, as well as the other people discussing the thread. Continuing a debate in the form of a legality challenge is a bit underhand. The best thing would be to go back to the thread, and continue the debate. Rephrase your argument if you need to. The point stands: it is too early to lodge a legality challenge while the draft is at such an early embryonic stage.

The New California Republic wrote:

Covenstone wrote:
Go read the drafting thread. Then come back here and say that again

OOC: I have read the thread. It isn't the World Assembly's problem if your comments have been discounted by the author of the draft, as well as the other people discussing the thread. Continuing a debate in the form of a legality challenge is a bit underhand. The best thing would be to go back to the thread, and continue the debate. Rephrase your argument if you need to. The point stands: it is too early to lodge a legality challenge while the draft is at such an early embryonic stage.

<ooc> With all due respect, the author challenged me to launch a legality challenge. I can copy the quote if you want it in this thread as well as that. So, you know, since the author told me to do this, I thought it would be only polite to follow their wishes.</ooc>

Covenstone wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:OOC: I have read the thread. It isn't the World Assembly's problem if your comments have been discounted by the author of the draft, as well as the other people discussing the thread. Continuing a debate in the form of a legality challenge is a bit underhand. The best thing would be to go back to the thread, and continue the debate. Rephrase your argument if you need to. The point stands: it is too early to lodge a legality challenge while the draft is at such an early embryonic stage.

<ooc> With all due respect, the author challenged me to launch a legality challenge. I can copy the quote if you want it in this thread as well as that. So, you know, since the author told me to do this, I thought it would be only polite to follow their wishes.</ooc>

OOC: What a cynical and snide reply. The author didn't challenge you, you threatened to mount a legality challenge in the first instance, you were the person that started it, not the author of the draft. Do you want me to show you the quote? Here it is:

Covenstone wrote:I have a vast swathe of legality challenges set to go. And, depending on how bored I get, I might actually set them off tomorrow

Also, you didn't think that it would be "polite" to follow their wishes, that wasn't the reason at all. Sheer nonsense. The point still stands, it is too early for a legality challenge. Go back to the debate and continue the debate.

TNCR, the snark isn't necessary. Nor either are you a member of GenSec or Moderation to be speaking so authoritatively on GenSec policy.

Covenstone, TNCR has a point. The draft is very young. It could easily change. Wait until the draft reaches a more stable point where it is less likely to be changed and invalidate a ruling, and we'll talk.

For what it's worth, Tinfect isn't under any obligation to heed your concerns in drafting. It's his risk. We encourage ooen cooperation and discourse, but not every author is so willing.

Folks, GenSec has established that legality challenge threads are meant to be OOC so no need to label each post as such. That's just one of the reasons why they are in a separate thread, so as to not muck up the IC stream in the draft threads.

As for NCR's point about this being premature, has Tinfect made any indication that this proposal is ready for submission yet? If not, then perhaps this:

The New California Republic wrote:Go back to the debate and continue the debate.

would be a good idea.

Separatist Peoples wrote:TNCR, the snark isn't necessary.

This, as well. Just a friendly modly reminder.

The point I was attempting to make earlier is that in essence, it would be pointless for any ruling to be made on this challenge. The fact that the proposal is not yet in earnest, does not appear to be immutable, and is probably not going to very soon be submitted, means that there are no real reasons for a ruling to be heard. If it is true that Tinfect says that you should file a legality challenge, I think he means that it should be filed somewhat contemporaneously with the actual proposal.

Wrapper wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:TNCR, the snark isn't necessary.

This, as well. Just a friendly modly reminder.

Apologies, it wasn't intended. I just didn't like the fact that Covenstone tried to fob me off with a cynical answer. Calm has been restored.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The point I was attempting to make earlier is that in essence, it would be pointless for any ruling to be made on this challenge. The fact that the proposal is not yet in earnest, does not appear to be immutable, and is probably not going to very soon be submitted, means that there are no real reasons for a ruling to be heard. If it is true that Tinfect says that you should file a legality challenge, I think he means that it should be filed somewhat contemporaneously with the actual proposal.

What actually happened is that I told him to follow through if he actually thought it was illegal, instead of trying use to the threat of legality challenges in an attempt to shut down the draft.

As for the challenge itself, which as it has been noted, is incredibly premature...

Covenstone wrote:Although the proposal Secularism in Governance might violate game mechanics, I would like to launch a legality challenge against it on grounds relating to violation of previous General Assembly Resolutions.

To note, it hasn't violated Game Mechanics since the first revision, if you feel that it does, actually bring it up in this challenge rather than implying it on the backhand.

Covenstone wrote:Reason 1. It violates GAR #27 - Freedom of Assembly.


Clause 5 of the proposal makes it illegal for Religious Institutions to involve themselves in politics.

I think this violates Clause 1 of Freedom of Assembly says "All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view", which gives any group (regardless of the type of group) the right to assemble to express a view. If a religious group wants to assemble to endorse a candidate, its right to do so is protected under this Clause (providing they do so peacefully).

If there's anything legitimate here, it's this. If we could get another opinion on this while we're here, that'd be great.

Covenstone wrote:Reason 2. It violates GAR #155 - Freedom of The Press.

If a newspaper's primary function can be described as religious (an example could be The Watchtower) then arguably it would fall under Clause 5 of this proposal.

Article 2, Clause 5 of GAR #155 forbids censorship of newspapers under any circumstances (except national security, which I do not see this could be classified as), and if a newspaper is not free to endorse or comment on a political campaign because of this new proposal, then I believe it would be an act of censorship and a violation of this clause.

This, however, is patently false. The definition of a religious institution does not, in any way, shape, or form, include journalistic organizations. The Watchtower is a newspaper serving a religious audience from a religious viewpoint, it is not involved in any way with the actual function of the church or the religious practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I would agree that the GAR #155 challenge is an incredible leap at best, given the narrow definition of a "religious institution" - even an official church organ doesn't count as a religious institution and is thus able to continue to do everything we expect a newspaper to do in the realm of politics.

The GAR #27 challenge is more serious. Clause 5 of the proposal appears to be a direct contradiction. I'm always willing to entertain contrary arguments, but I can't imagine that that clause wouldn't have to be changed or dropped.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I would agree that the GAR #155 challenge is an incredible leap at best, given the narrow definition of a "religious institution" - even an official church organ doesn't count as a religious institution and is thus able to continue to do everything we expect a newspaper to do in the realm of politics.

Well, if it's true, any nation which seeks to prevent religious institutions from being able to publish freely ... wouldn't consider them religious institutions. About the other one, there is a brilliant suggestion I just heard which solves the problem without difficulty.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:The GAR #27 challenge is more serious. Clause 5 of the proposal appears to be a direct contradiction. I'm always willing to entertain contrary arguments, but I can't imagine that that clause wouldn't have to be changed or dropped.

From looking at the current draft, it seems that clause 5 could be removed from the proposal, without the overall intent of the proposal being seriously affected. Perhaps the Strength of the proposal would need to be changed to reflect the removal however, as the proposal would, admittedly, have less bite without it. It would be far easier to remove clause 5 than to edit it, as it seems that clause 5 is inherently contradictory to GAR # 27, it probably wouldn't be a simple matter of changing the wording etc.

I'm looking at this and I just don't see the argument. I don't see how these objections apply.
The first objection involves individuals, not institutions. Individuals within an organization can always do things AS INDIVIDUALS.
The second objection involves the press, but the press isn't mentioned at all in any way, shape or form.

Tzorsland wrote:I'm looking at this and I just don't see the argument. I don't see how these objections apply.
The first objection involves individuals, not institutions. Individuals within an organization can always do things AS INDIVIDUALS.

That's pretty much how I saw it as well.

Tzorsland wrote:I'm looking at this and I just don't see the argument. I don't see how these objections apply.
The first objection involves individuals, not institutions. Individuals within an organization can always do things AS INDIVIDUALS.

That's not the point and entirely not at issue.

If you said The Fraternal Order of Police could not endorse a political candidate and instead required each and every police officer to endorse one individually, would that be acceptable? If you wrote A LAW forbidding the Veterans of Foreign Wars to endorse a candidate in the name of that group, do you think ANYONE would accept that? Or would they throw faeces (and other projectiles) at you until you overturned that law?

Religious groups, institutions and so forth should NOT be forbidden by law from expressing an opinion en mass (so to speak) just because they are a religious group instead of a secular one. It is discrimination of the worst order (which violates GAR #35 to one degree or another) and CLEARLY violates GAR #27. And I don't see HOW you can argue against that fact. Just because they CAN do it as individuals doesn't mean they SHOULD HAVE TO do it as individuals.

My coven - as a coven - wants to endorse Sophie McTaylorTots as the next Chief Rabbi. That is a view they want to express and a cause they want to pursue. Under Freedom of Assembly THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT as a group to do it. And this proposal would strip them of that right, which I put it to you makes it illegal.

Covenstone wrote:Religious groups, institutions and so forth should NOT be forbidden by law from expressing an opinion en mass (so to speak) just because they are a religious group instead of a secular one. It is discrimination of the worst order (which violates GAR #35 to one degree or another) and CLEARLY violates GAR #27. And I don't see HOW you can argue against that fact. Just because they CAN do it as individuals doesn't mean they SHOULD HAVE TO do it as individuals.

1) It doesn't violate #35, as all religious institutions are treated in an equal manner, and #35 only protects from discrimination against individuals.

2) It doesn't violate #27 because, again, #27 only protects the individual's right to free expression.

My coven - as a coven - wants to endorse Sophie McTaylorTots as the next Chief Rabbi. That is a view they want to express and a cause they want to pursue. Under Freedom of Assembly THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT as a group to do it. And this proposal would strip them of that right, which I put it to you makes it illegal.

They do not have that right under WA law. That's rather obvious to anyone who reads the Resolution #27's clauses.

And just to preempt any challenge on grounds of it being an ideological ban, we leftists tried that on a similar (To us) resolution and and the ruling, sadly, was pretty clear: viewtopic.php?p=31219659#p31219659

Attempted Socialism wrote:And just to preempt any challenge on grounds of it being an ideological ban, we leftists tried that on a similar (To us) resolution and and the ruling, sadly, was pretty clear: viewtopic.php?p=31219659#p31219659

^This.

Attempted Socialism wrote:And just to preempt any challenge on grounds of it being an ideological ban, we leftists tried that on a similar (To us) resolution and and the ruling, sadly, was pretty clear: viewtopic.php?p=31219659#p31219659

Thank you! I've been referring to this ruling, but could never find it.

Wallenburg wrote:

Covenstone wrote:Religious groups, institutions and so forth should NOT be forbidden by law from expressing an opinion en mass (so to speak) just because they are a religious group instead of a secular one. It is discrimination of the worst order (which violates GAR #35 to one degree or another) and CLEARLY violates GAR #27. And I don't see HOW you can argue against that fact. Just because they CAN do it as individuals doesn't mean they SHOULD HAVE TO do it as individuals.

1) It doesn't violate #35, as all religious institutions are treated in an equal manner, and #35 only protects from discrimination against individuals.

2) It doesn't violate #27 because, again, #27 only protects the individual's right to free expression.

My coven - as a coven - wants to endorse Sophie McTaylorTots as the next Chief Rabbi. That is a view they want to express and a cause they want to pursue. Under Freedom of Assembly THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT as a group to do it. And this proposal would strip them of that right, which I put it to you makes it illegal.

They do not have that right under WA law. That's rather obvious to anyone who reads the Resolution #27's clauses.

Apparently it is not obvious, but whatever.

Then I have another resolution for you. GAR #174.

If semantics can twist GAR #27 into the actions of a group being the actions of a bunch of individuals, then semantics can EASILY twist a petition into being a letter of endorsement.

EDIT

I also have a question about GAR #27, because I think you are wrong.

Clause 3 of GAR #27 states that "These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people." Which is not something I wish to bitch and whine about, because that makes perfect sense.

However if, for example, I organised a group called "The Righteous Daughters of Jihadi Excellence" and we repeatedly rampaged through your capital city, then you would probably arrest me and my band of merry warriors, but I am willing to bet you would also put the group itself on a watch list, or even on a list of proscribed organisations. You might even declare membership of said group illegal and a crime. And if we moved from just rampaging and causing damage to blowing shit up, then I am almost certain that you would do that.

So, to me, that would suggest that it is THE GROUP as well as the individuals that is at fault. And that THE GROUP has its own part to play. Which suggests that THE GROUP can be considered its own entity and therefore qualify for protection under GAR #27, despite what has been said previously.

FURTHER EDIT

You realise that this ruling would mean that the joke "Is The Pope Catholic" would now be a legitimate question. Just sit and think about that while you question whether the previous precedent should apply to this or not.

Covenstone wrote:Then I have another resolution for you. GAR #174.
If semantics can twist GAR #27 into the actions of a group being the actions of a bunch of individuals, then semantics can EASILY twist a petition into being a letter of endorsement.

Not if you actually read the definition of petition as it appears in Resolution 174;

DEFINES a petition as: a written observation, suggestion, request, criticism or complaint that relates to an issue of public or private interest;

Covenstone wrote:[...]
So, to me, that would suggest that it is THE GROUP as well as the individuals that is at fault. And that THE GROUP has its own part to play. Which suggests that THE GROUP can be considered its own entity and therefore qualify for protection under GAR #27, despite what has been said previously.

The group can be considered to be representative of its members, if the group is considered a terrorist group, it is because its individual members have engaged in acts of terrorism. In this particular instance, though, said terrorist group would not be protected by Resolution 27.

Covenstone wrote:You realise that this ruling would mean that the joke "Is The Pope Catholic" would now be a legitimate question.

How? The Pope is a rank that exists only within the Catholic Church, it can therefore be reasonably assumed that the Pope is a Catholic.

Tinfect wrote:

Covenstone wrote:Then I have another resolution for you. GAR #174.
If semantics can twist GAR #27 into the actions of a group being the actions of a bunch of individuals, then semantics can EASILY twist a petition into being a letter of endorsement.

Not if you actually read the definition of petition as it appears in Resolution 174;

DEFINES a petition as: a written observation, suggestion, request, criticism or complaint that relates to an issue of public or private interest;

Who is running for government should be of MASSIVE public interest, don't you think? It is to me. Whether or not it is to you is something I can't really do anything about.

So if we write to the government (we being My Coven, or my Church group, or my Sunday School) about the unsuitability for James von Squeekyface for the role of Undersecretary of Mouseketeers, that would be a petition. According to that definition, at least. (Plus there is nothing that says we can't copy it to the press because the freedom of the press covers this since the press we are writing to is NOT part of our religious group and they are free to publish whatever they like).

Covenstone wrote:[...]
So, to me, that would suggest that it is THE GROUP as well as the individuals that is at fault. And that THE GROUP has its own part to play. Which suggests that THE GROUP can be considered its own entity and therefore qualify for protection under GAR #27, despite what has been said previously.

The group can be considered to be representative of its members, if the group is considered a terrorist group, it is because its individual members have engaged in acts of terrorism. In this particular instance, though, said terrorist group would not be protected by Resolution 27.

That wasn't my point. My point was that if a government can take action against a group as a whole (by proscribing the group) then the group MUST exist as an entity. And if it exists as an entity, then other groups (that are not doing bad things) must ALSO exist as entities, and they WOULD qualify for protection under GAR #27.

One could argue.

Covenstone wrote:You realise that this ruling would mean that the joke "Is The Pope Catholic" would now be a legitimate question.

How? The Pope is a rank that exists only within the Catholic Church, it can therefore be reasonably assumed that the Pope is a Catholic.

The Vatican is a city state. Or, to put it another way, a Nation State. It is run by The Bishop of Rome. Always has been and always will be. However under this new proposal, The Vatican can no longer enforce a requirement to have, as its head of state, a Catholic, because it is now illegal to require someone to have a religious affiliation to do the job.

That would mean The Bishop of Rome would no longer have to be Catholic.

Do you SEE the problem with this?